Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Guildford and West Kent main Sewerage District) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Torquay and Paignton Traction [Lords.]

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Tees Valley Water Bill (Certified Bill),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

Glasgow Corporation Bill,

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

VIVISECTION.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I desire to present a petition, signed by 102,816 persons, which prays:
that the practice of experiments upon living animals will be prohibited by law
in your honourable House; and your petitioners as, in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSFERRED WORKERS, SOUTHWARK.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Minister off Labour how many miners who were transferred to the Borough of Southwark under the Transference Scheme are still in employment; and whether they are in the original positions to which they were sent?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): Special efforts, which I think are generally successful, are made by the Exchanges to find other employment for transferred persons who become unemployed, but detailed records are not kept and I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to supply the statistics desired by my hon. Friend.

Mr. DAY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these positions which have been taken up by transferred workers are only temporary, and that the workers are now unemployed?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am not aware of that fact.

INSURANCE FUND (DEBT).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour what will be the debt on 1st April of the Unemployment Insurance Fund if the index figure remains substantially the same as at present?

Miss BONDFIELD: Assuming that the number on the Live Register remains substantially the same as at present, namely, £1,563,800 it is estimated that the debt of the Unemployment Fund on the 1st April, will be about £39,000,000. The abnormally high level of unemployment which has prevailed since the beginning of January caused a serious drain on the resources of the fund. The borrowing powers of the fund are at present limited to £40,000,000 and proposals for increasing this limit will be laid before Parliament at an early date.

Sir A. POWNALL: Will these proposals be laid before Parliament before Easter, as we are now within £1,000,000 of our borrowing powers, and we may run short before Easter?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.

TRAINING SCHEMES.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is taking any steps to develop the training side of the work of the Ministry of Labour; and, if so, if she will state the nature of them?

Miss BONDFIELD: The training schemes administered by my Department are under constant review and every opportunity is being taken to extend them. Steps are being taken to open two new centres, providing additional accommodation for approximately 2,000 men per annum, for the training of men for employment in this country. As regards women, the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment have recently opened a residential centre at Leamington for the training of women in domestic service, and they have also under consideration plans to provide opportunities for women for whom training in domestic service is inappropriate. This is exclusive of the provision made for boys and girls.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Lady found these methods satisfactory?

Miss BONDFIELD: Satisfactory as far as they go. I would willingly hasten them if I could.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is a great shortage of domestic servants, and will she take steps to carry out the necessary training?

Miss BONDFIELD: The matter is constantly receiving my attention.

WATERPROOF GARMENT MACHINISTS.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of waterproof garment machinists who are now unemployed; and whether she is aware that in many districts it is very difficult to fill the requirements of manufacturers?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that separate statistics are not available in
respect of unemployment among waterproof garment machinists; but I am having inquiries made as to the alleged shortage of workers.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: If applicants for certain posts give excuses, such as that an hour is not enough for lunch, and that eight o'clock is too early to start in the morning, do they still remain on the unemployment benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: I imagine that both those excuses would disqualify them from benefit.

BENEFIT.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the policy adopted by Employment Exchanges in respect of supplying labour to non-union works; whether workers are obliged to take up such employment if offered; and, if not, whether such employés are still regarded as genuinely seeking work?

Miss BONDFIELD: Any stipulations made by the employer in this matter are brought to the notice of any workman to whom the employment is offered, and if he then refuses it the question whether he remains entitled to unemployment benefit is one for decision by the statutory authorities.

BETHNAL GREEN.

Major NATHAN: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in Bethnal Green at any convenient date in February and March, 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Number of persons resident in the Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green on the Registers of Employment Exchanges.

Date.
Number.


13th February, 1928
…
2,491


12th March, 1928
…
2,320


11th February, 1929
…
2,979


11th March, 1929
…
2,947


17th February, 1930
…
3,389


10th March, 1930
…
3,456

STIRLING AND FALKIRK.

Mr. MURNIN: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed work-
people on the register of the Stirling and Falkirk Employment Exchanges of the following classes: miners, bricklayers, masons, and general labourers, for the years 1927 to 1929?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am obtaining these figures, and will send them to my hon. Friend.

JUNIOR INSTRUCTION CENTRES.

Mr. HARRIS: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour how many training centres have been established in the county of London for unemployed insured juveniles; where are they located; what is the average attendance at them since January last; and whether she is satisfied that the centres are within reasonable distance of those required to attend?

Miss BONDFIELD: There are two Junior Instruction Centres for unemployed boys and girls in the county of London. These centres are conducted by the London County Council in conjunction with day continuation schools at Turin Street, Bethnal Green Road, and at Herold's Institution, Bermondsey. The average daily attendance since the centres opened on 6th January has been 222 boys and 126 girls. Only those juveniles who live within a reasonable distance of these centres are required to attend. Fares are paid in certain cases.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Lady aware that some of the young persons in the technical institute have to come from as far away as St. Pancras—this is rather a long way—and will she try to see if one or two more centres can be opened?

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is the curriculum of these training centres preliminary, or is it in a completed stage?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means. The curriculum is organised by the education authority of the London County Council.

Mr. HARRIS: Is not the Turin Street centre a great success, and greatly appreciated by those in training?

Miss BONDFIELD: I understand that both are.

Mr. HARRIS: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether there are any areas in the country where there are a considerable
number of unemployed juveniles where there are no facilities in the way of training centres; if so, how many; and where are they located?

Miss BONDFIELD: In 48 areas, a list of which I am sending to the hon. Member, junior instruction centres or classes are being maintained by the education authorities with the assistance of an Exchequer grant. These include most of the distressed mining areas and certain other areas in which unemployment among juveniles is both considerable and prolonged. As regards other areas, the Ministry is in negotiation with the local education authorities, whose co-operation, as the hon. Member knows, is essential. Owing to the way in which in many cases the figures vary within short periods, I cannot very well state how many areas are concerned, but I can assure the hon. Member that the matter is being actively pursued, in consultation with the National Advisory Councils for Juvenile Employment.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, DURHAM.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that a large number of girls and boys from the north-eastern area have been placed in situations in the south of England through the special agency created for this purpose in Durham, and that the Labour Ministry has discontinued support to this agency; and if she can state the reason for this change of policy?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have no official statistics with regard to the agency to which I presume the hon. and gallant Member refers. An officer of the Department was lent to assist the agency on a temporary basis from the 20th March, 1929, to the 2nd August, 1929, having regard to the special circumstances then existing: it was not considered justifiable to continue indefinitely an arrangement which involved the loan of a public official to a voluntary agency.

Colonel BROWN: In view of the fact that nearly 3,000 untrained persons have been found situations through this agency in the south, is it not a pity to refuse assistance merely on account of red tape?

Miss BONDFIELD: No. I think that, while I am not responsible for those statistics—which I accept from the hon.
and gallant Gentleman—there are a number of voluntary agencies that have never yet applied for, or received public assistance.

RATING RELIEF.

Mr. MORLEY: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour if she can supply any information as to what has been the effect up to date of derating in lessening unemployment?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that statistics are not available from which it would be possible to make an estimate on this point.

COVENTRY.

Captain EDEN: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed in the City of Coventry on 11th March last; and what was the number on the corresponding date last year?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 10th March, 1930, there were 5,516 persons on the register of the Coventry Employment Exchange including 3,167 wholly unemployed and 2,349 temporarily stopped. At 11th March, 1929, the corresponding total was 2,241, including 1,618 wholly unemployed and 623 temporarily stopped.

Captain EDEN: Is it a fact that the figures which the right hon. Lady has just given are the worst ever recorded for the month of March in the history of the City of Coventry, and has she drawn the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his share of the responsibility for them?

UNSTAMPED INSURANCE CARDS, LUTON.

Mr. THORNE: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether her attention has been called to the case of a Luton contractor who has been summoned for the non-stamping of six Sheffield workmen's unemployment insurance cards; and if she can state whether the workmen have suffered loss of benefit in consequence,

Miss BONDFIELD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am inquiring whether delay has been caused in the payment of unemployment benefit to any of the men concerned and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS.

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is now able to make a statement with regard to the progress made in the applications for and setting up of trade boards since the present Government took office?

Miss BONDFIELD: The only action being taken at present is in relation to the catering trade.

Mr. MANDER: Cannot the right hon. Lady hold out any hope that the Government are going to take a more active procedure in this matter?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have received no applications from either employers or employés.

Mr. MANDER: I will raise the matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CON- VENTION (WRECKED SEAMEN).

Sir BASIL PETO: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour what maritime Powers, whose representatives, in June, 1920, at Genoa, signed the convention that, in every case of loss or foundering of any vessel, masters, officers and seamen employed thereon shall be indemnified against unemployment resulting from such loss or foundering, has not as yet ratified this convention?

Miss BONDFIELD: The draft International Labour Conventions are not signed. They are adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of the International Labour Conference, and referred to the Governments of the States members of the organisation. The draft convention in question was voted for by the Government representatives of 26 countries. I am circulating in the OFFCIAL REPORT a list of these countries, showing those which have and have not up to the present ratified the convention.

Sir B. PETO: Can the right hon. Lady say whether a large number of those 26 countries have not, as a matter of fact, ratified?

Miss BONDFIELD: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

Following is the list:


Countries which have ratified.


Belgium.
Italy.


Canada.
Poland.


France.
Croats and Slovenes.


Great Britain.
Spain.


Greece.



Countries which have not ratified.


Argentine.
Norway.


Australia.
Portugal.


Chile.
Rumania.


Czechoslovakia.
Siam.


Denmark.
Sweden.


Germany.
Switzerland.


India.
Uruguay.


Japan.
Venezuela.


Netherlands.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUTE INDUSTRY (WAGES).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that the Chairman of the Trade Board, at the hearing of the jute industry employers' claim for a reduction of 4 per cent. in wages, stated that the machinery was antiquated and inefficient; and, as the decision was in favour of the claim, will she take this into consideration before ratification, as also the fact that the appointed members would not have voted for the reduction but for the state of trade?

Miss BONDFIELD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It will be my duty to take account of all relevant considerations in deciding whether to confirm the board's proposals.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Before the right hon. Lady considers the application, will she obtain a full report of the criticism of the chairman of the employers, and is she prepared to receive a deputation?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think the hon. Member is not aware that the proceedings of the Board are supposed to be private, and the Minister is only informed of the proceedings by such reports as are supplied by either side.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I realise that, but I am asking whether the right hon. Lady will endeavour to obtain a report of the actual criticism by the chairman of the employers.

Miss BONDFIELD: I shall expect a report to be supplied to me if I am being asked to make the decision.

Mr. KELLY: Is it not the usual practice of the Board to report to the Minister, in order to secure the Minister's ratification of what they do?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEA SALES (BONUS SCHEMES).

Mr. DAY: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the increasing number of fraudulent tea bonus schemes; and will he consider the introduction of legislation to prohibit these practices?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): If such schemes comprise criminal frauds they should be reported to the police. I understand that often fraud cannot be proved. As at present advised I do not think legislation is necessary and in that connection I would call my hon. Friend's attention to the decision of the High Court in Howgate against Ralph, reported in the Press of 12th April last year, when magistrates were directed to convict as for a lottery.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Food Council to this general practice of companies in relation to the sales of tea?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware that there is any such general practice, but I will pass on the information.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right bon. Gentleman not aware that where these bonus schemes and coupons are operating the purchasers are supplied with an inferior class of tea?

Mr. CLYNES: I thank my hon. Friend for that information.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGEAPH FILMS (CENSORSHIP).

Mr. DAY: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the inability of the present Board of British Film Censors to enforce any decisions that may be arrived at by them with reference to the exhibition of British talking films made from stage plays, he will consider the introduction of legislation which will have as its object some uniformity in control of stage and film censorship?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 13th instant to questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr. Horrabin) and the East Division of Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson).

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since that time certain films have been prohibited in different parts of the Empire, although they are taken from stage plays?

Mr. CLYNES: That may be so, but no representations have been made to me as to the precise kind of action that the aggrieved persons wish to be taken.

Mr. HORRABIN: 30.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the setting up of a national authority having power, in the case of films banned by the trade censorship for general exhibition, to grant licences for such films to be shown at private exhibitions or under specified conditions?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir; I am not prepared to interfere with the jurisdiction which is at present vested in the local authorities in this matter.

Mr. HORRABIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to recent reports some local authorities, at least, do not consider themselves as best fitted to exercise this censorship, and that an extension of the facilities of the private societies would very materially assist those who are anxious to raise the general level of production?

Mr. CLYNES: I think the statements in that supplementary question are correct, but no representations of a representative or authoritative character have reached me for a long time.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the appointment of a Select Committee to go into the whole working of the censorship?

HON. MEMBERS: Another Committee!

Mr. CLYNES: I have already said that the aggrieved parties in this matter have made no definite suggestions or representations as to what it is they wish inquired into.

Mr. FENNER BROCKWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to
receive a deputation representative of the various parts of this House on this matter?

Mr. CLYNES: I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with hon. Members, but I would prefer that they should speak with some authority for the aggrieved parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.

Mr. FOOT: 24.
asked the Home Secretary when the Report of the Racecourse Betting Control Board in respect of the period ended the 31st December, 1929, will be presented in Parliament?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to a similar question by the hon. Member for the West-houghton Division (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the 13th instant.

Mr. FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of this matter, having regard to the recent public declaration of the Chairman of the Board that the installation of the totalisator had increased attendances at racecourses from 20 to 40 per cent., and is there any reason why we should wait 12 months for the Report?

Mr. CLYNES: I have not said anything about waiting 12 months. The answer I gave on a former occasion suggested that the question should be raised after the Easter Recess, but, in view of what my hon. Friend now says, I will look into the matter and see if it can be hastened.

Oral Answers to Questions — "DAILY WORKER" NEWSPAPER.

Mr. SMITHERS: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been directed to an article on page 6 of the "Daily Worker" of 10th March containing, especially in the penultimate paragraph, phrases of incitement to revolution and calculated to cause a breach of the peace; and what action does he propose to take?

Mr. CLYNES: I have read the article to which the hon. Member refers, and I find in it nothing which calls for any action on my part.

Mr. SMITHERS: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to an
addition to the title of this paper; and, in view of the fact that its connection with the Comintern is now definitely established, will he draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to that as a breach of the Protocol of 4th October?

Mr. CLYNES: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the contents of this paper, and I do not think it is a journal which is strengthened by any addition to its title.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that it would be quite impossible for the people who represent this paper or anybody else to bring about a physical revolution in this country?

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bring this matter to the notice of the Foreign Secretary, because the addition to the title definitely—in my opinion, anyhow—makes a breach of the Protocol of 4th October.

Mr. CLYNES: I will speak to my right hon. Friend.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMP-SON: Who subsidises it?

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEA VISITORS.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the possibility in future Home Office Returns of distinguishing between those visitors from overseas who enter this country for the purpose of spending their holidays here and those who come for other purposes?

Mr. CLYNES: I think that my previous reply has perhaps been misunderstood. The returns already contain

NUMBER of BOYS and GIRLS sent by Order of Court who were in Home Office Schools and Borstal Institutions on 31st December in each year.


Year.
Borstal Institutions.
Reformatories.
Industrial Schools.
Day Industrial Schools.


Boys.
Girls.
Boys.
Girls.
Boys.
Girls.
Boys.
Girls.


1913
…
…
…
853
90
3,542
519
9,972
3,059
1,120
666


1919
…
…
…
681
194
4,117
429
9,670
2,310
518
226


1925
…
…
…
1,106
63
1,876
124
3,667
1,091
201
110


1929
…
…
…
1,345
116
1,846
166
3,144
798
125
69

separate headings for "Business visitors" and for "Visitors on holiday, tourists, etc." I am advised that it would not be practicable to sub-divide the latter heading, but I think the right hon. Gentleman may accept the figures given under that heading as fairly representing, for practical purposes, the number of aliens coining to this country on holiday.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARCOS, LIMITED (DISCHARGED EMPLOYES).

Mr. SMITHERS: 27.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can now give the House the result of his inquiries as to whether any of the discharged employés of Arcos, Limited, being Russian subjects, are still upon the British labour market?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir, the fresh inquiries I am making are not yet completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

Major NATHAN: 28.
asked the Home Secretary the number of boys and girls in reformatory schools at 31st December, 1929, as compared with the number in reformatory schools at 31st December, 1913, 1919 and 1925; and the like information as regards Borstal institutions and industrial schools?

Mr. CLYNES: As it would take a long time to read all the figures the answer will be printed, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCIS LORANG.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can now state when Francis Lorang will be brought to trial?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot add anything to the answer I gave the right hon. Gentleman on the 6th instant.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these proceedings have been very protracted, and is he doing all he can himself to expedite the matter?

Mr. CLYNES: I am afraid that there is some justification for that comment, and we are awaiting a reply from the French Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation limiting the maximum working week for workers under 18 years to 48 hours and making provision that juvenile employment shall generally be prohibited after 6 p.m.?

Mr. CLYNES: If the hon. Member is referring to factory industries, the hours of young persons employed in these industries will be dealt with in the Factories Bill, and I am not at present prepared to make any detailed statement on the point.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about those who will not be dealt with in the Factories Bill—those working outside?

Mr. CLYNES: I think that in November, during a discussion on a private Member's Bill, I gave an assurance that the cases which my hon. Friend has in mind will be separately dealt with in a Bill apart from the Factories Bill.

Major NATHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to when he will be able to introduce the Factories Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not able to say at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (CRIMINAL APPEALS).

Major ROSS: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any Statement as to when he proposes to introduce a Bill to provide a court of criminal appeal for Northern Ireland?

Mr. CLYNES: A Bill is in an advanced state of preparation, but in view of the present demands upon Parliamentary time I am afraid I cannot now say when it) will be possible to proceed with it.

Major ROSS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom without a court of criminal appeal, and, in view of the keen desire of the people who live there to have one, does he not think a non-controversial Bill might be expedited?

Mr. CLYNES: If I have proof that such a Bill would be non-controversial, I shall be glad to take action.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME OFFICE (CHILDREN'S REPORT).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to issue an annual report of the children's branch this year; and, if so, what it is likely to appear?

Mr. CLYNES: It is proposed to issue this report triennially, the next number being due in 1931.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWEEPSTAKES.

Mr. DUKES: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether the limitations on the scope and character of the Stock Exchange sweepstake are, in his opinion, such as to remove any necessity for his calling the attention of the police to the carrying on of the sweepstake with a view to warning the promoters that if they do not desist proceedings will be instituted; and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent the sale in this country of tickets for the Calcutta sweepstake unless the promoters follow the example of the promoters of the Stock Exchange sweepstake?

Mr. CLYNES: I understand that henceforth the Stock Exchange sweep will be a purely private affair strictly confined
to members of a single and localised organisation, namely, of the Stock Exchange. If it be so conducted and nothings occurs, such as the sale or transfer to non-members of tickets or shares in tickets, to show that the sweep or draw is other than a private one, I for my part shall not move to initiate action. Anyone of course can take proceedings and all questions of law are for the Courts, but I will let the police know my view and I have no reason to think they will take and act upon any other view. But if any sweep or draw, large or small, is so conducted as not to be of a private character, the authorities will have no option but to take whatever action is possible in the circumstances of the particular case. So far as administrative action by me is concerned, this broad distinction, private or not private, is the test for all sweeps or draws, wherever carried on, and for whatever objects. I am glad to have had the opportunity of making this statement, which ought to dispose once for all of the suggestion that in this matter there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.

Mr. SANDHAM: Arising out of that answer, as an alleged rogue and vagabond, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there are over 200,000 tickets on sale in Manchester, tickets costing 2s. 6d. each, for a draw, the first prize of which is £4,000?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN WAITERS.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: 35.
asked the Home Secretary what regulations govern the employment of foreigners as waiters in this country; and whether restrictions as to hours apply?

Mr. CLYNES: No alien can be given leave to land in this country for the purpose of taking up employment as a waiter unless he is in possession of a permit issued by the Minister of Labour under Article 1 (3) (b) of the Aliens Order, 1920. The law in regard to hours of employment does not discriminate between aliens and British subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDERS (BICYCLISTS).

Mr. WHITE: 37.
asked the Home Secretary if he can state the number of
boys who have been sent to prison in any recent year for riding a bicycle without a light?

Mr. CLYNES: The number of males under the age of 21 committed to prison in 1929 in default of paying fines inflicted for riding cycles without lights was 12; they must all have been over 16 years of age.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these 12 offenders were first offenders, and is he taking steps to prevent young men from being sent to prison for such trivial offences?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE (ACCOMMODATION).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has received any communications from the Association of Education Committees stating that certain education authorities find it impossible to find the additional accommodation necessary by 1st April, 1931, if the school age is raised on that date; and what action he proposes to take in such cases?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): The Association have not sent me any such communication, and in any case, as I have already informed the hon. Member, the fact that a few authorities may not have completed their arrangements in time does not appear to me to be a sufficient reason for postponing the date proposed for the raising of the school-leaving age.

Mr. HARRIS: Would not the best remedy be to pass this Bill into an Act of Parliament, which would remove all excuse for avoiding those responsibilities?

Captain CROOKSHANK: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received from the Haxey Parish Council a resolution protesting against the proposed raising of the school age; and whether he has received any other similar resolutions from parish councils in rural areas?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not true that there is a growing dissatisfaction in the rural areas about the raising of the school age?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I receive about 30 resolutions in favour to one against.

Mr. SKELTON: Is it not the case that under the present regime it is extremely improbable that the school age will be raised and that this, like other things, will not be done?

Mr. HARRIS: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education if there are any local authorities that are not making the necessary preparations in anticipation of the raising of the school age in 1931; if so, how many; and which are the principal authorities that are failing in this respect?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Two authorities, Wolverhampton and the Isle of Ely, have informed me that they do not propose to proceed with their preparations for the raising of the school leaving age until the Education (School Attendance) Bill becomes law, and I have reason to think that the failure of some other authorities to submit proposals may be due to the same reason.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL (JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT).

Dr. DAVIES: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been drawn to a Report of the London School Attendance Sub-Committee in which they point out that the Education (School Attendance) Bill will allow children between 14 and 15 years of age to be employed outside school hours, as the Education Act, 1921, definitely limits the age to which by-laws regulating the employment of children may be made to apply to 14 years; and what action, if any, does he propose to take?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have seen the report in question. I may, however, point out that the restrictions on the employment of children contained in Sections 94 and 95 of the Education Act, 1921, will apply to children between the ages of 14 and 15 when the school age is raised.

Dr. DAVIES: Does the President of the Board of Education consider that the
members of the London School Attendance Sub-Committee are wrong in their conclusion?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: There is no reason, if the hon. Member is keen about it, why he should not raise that matter on the Bill.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman is doing nothing in this matter?

STAFFING (COST).

Mr. HACKING: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Education the estimated cost of teachers per child for elementary education in 1930 and how this compares with that for 1913?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The cost of teachers' salaries for elementary education, in England and Wales, is estimated at £8 12s. 2d. per child for 1930, as compared with £3 1s. in 1913.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (COST).

Mr. HACKING: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education the estimated cost per pupil for elementary education in 1930 as compared with 1913?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The cost of elementary education in England and Wales is estimated at £13 0s. 6d. per pupil for 1930, as compared with £4 15s. 2d. for 1913.

TEACHERS' SALARIES, LINDSEY.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received from the Lindsey County Council any representations regarding the present cost of teachers' salaries; and, if so, what action he preposes to take?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have received the representations referred to. Teachers' salary scales are in the first instance a matter for the Burnham Committee, and I have accordingly suggested to the authority that any representations that they wish to make should be addressed to the County Councils Association, which is one of the associations represented on that committee.

REGIONAL SURVEY MAPS.

Mr. HORRABIN: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will recommend to local authorities the
preparation in schools of regional survey maps similar to the land utilisation map of the County of Northampton, prepared in the schools of that county and recently published?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am aware that valuable work on these lines has been carried out in some areas, but I should prefer to leave full discretion in the matter to the individual authorities, who are already alive to the importance of encouraging in the rural schools the study of local history and conditions.

Mr. HORRABIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a scheme for a complete map, covering the entire county, has been planned by the Geographical Association, which would be materially helped by the assistance of the Board of Education?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I will note that fact.

TEACHING OF HYGIENE.

Sir JOHN GANZONI: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Chief Medical Officer of the Board has asked the school medical officers throughout the country to submit to him a Report upon the teaching of hygiene in public elementary schools; and will he give directions that in future the local education authority and not its officers shall be requested to furnish such Reports?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: There has been some misunderstanding in regard to the Circular referred to. It has, however, been made clear by a subsequent communication to the school medical officers that the inquiry was concerned with the medical effect of the teaching of hygiene in the schools. It has been a practice of many years' standing for the Chief Medical Officer to communicate directly with his colleagues in the school medical service in regard to questions on which their professional opinion is desired.

STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. EDE: 62
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) in how many cases in each of the last three years persons taking up State scholarships were also awarded a college or university scholarship tenable at the place where they are holding their State scholarship;
(2) in how many cases in each of the last three years persons taking up State scholarships also received financial assistance from a local education authority towards the expenses of their course; and how many such persons also had a college or university scholarship;
(3) in how many cases in each of the last three years persons awarded State scholarships have declined them; and in how many such cases in each year were the scholarships declined because of the students' inability to bear the remainder of the cost of the desired university course?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I shall be glad to send my hon. Friend the information for which he asks as soon as it is available.

TRANSPORT OF CHILDREN.

Dr. DAVIES: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that rural areas having to provide transport for school children suffer a disadvantage when compared with urban areas which have no transport to provide; that the fact that in these rural areas the transport service will rank for grant in the usual way still means an increased expenditure for these areas and thus places them in a less advantageous position than the urban areas; and will he see that the whole cost of such transport is defrayed by the State?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am not at present satisfied that the percentage rate of grant in respect of this expenditure should be increased.

Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these rural areas are very concerned about the additional expense which will be thrown upon them, and think that they have been unfairly treated as compared with urban areas?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am considering this question, and representations have been made to me on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WHEAT SUPPLIES.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a commission, or other suitable body, for the pur-
pose of making an exhaustive inquiry into the organisation of the corn trade and the present position of our wheat supplies?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The examination which is at present being conducted by the Government into the proposal to establish a board for the bulk purchase of grain also involves examination into the subjects referred to by the hon. Member, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a special commission, as he suggests.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when the conclusions of this body are likely to be laid before the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 102.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the agricultural policy of the Government will be announced?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I would refer the Noble Lord to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) on the 16th December.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that his oyster-like attitude on this matter is causing dismay in the country districts, and that his silence on this matter is doing his party a great deal of harm all over the country?

MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCE, CARMARTHEN (MARKETING).

Mr. HOPKIN: 103.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take in the County of Carmarthen to meet the position in the milk trade next summer and autumn in view of the almost certain glut of surplus milk which will be produced?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I understand that at the instance of the Carmarthenshire Branch of the National Farmers' Union a committee representing producers in the Counties of Carmarthen, Pembroke
and Cardigan has recently investigated the problem of the marketing of milk and dairy produce in that area. The committee sent deputations to England, Scotland and Ireland and has thoroughly explored systems of selling milk and of handling milk for butter making and other purposes. I am advised that a report has been prepared which contains agreed plans and suggestions for dealing with the local situation. When the report is available, I shall be glad to consider whether I can be of any assistance, though it is likely that proposals for local action in regard to surplus milk must, in part at least, await a national scheme of organisation.

BEEF (NATIONAL MARK).

Mr. THORNE: 106.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the rules defining select beef and prime beef under the national meat-marking scheme are similar both for England and Scotland; and, if so, why an English side of beef marked select, or first grade, invariably sells for less on Smithfield Market than a Scottish side marked prime, or second grade, seeing that both are supposed to be graded to an equal rule of quality?

Mr. N. BUXTON: Similar grading standards for "select" and "prime" beef have been adopted by my Department and by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. It is not possible to define the reasons which determine variations in prices actually realised.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 107.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now satisfied that there is no attempt on the part of butchers in any part of the country to boycott beef that bears either the English or the Scottish national mark; and, if this is not the case, whether he will state the districts from which such a tendency has been reported?

Mr. BUXTON: There is now no evidence of any organised boycott of national mark beef in the London or Birmingham areas where the scheme is in operation; on the contrary, it is now freely sold by the great majority of butchers who deal in home-killed beef, as is shown by the fact that between 80 and 90 per cent. of the gradable beef on Smithfield Market is now marked and the quantity of beef marked in Birmingham has increased by 50 per cent. This
recent striking improvement may be attributed very largely to the publicity campaigns undertaken in the two centres by my Department in conjunction with the Empire Marketing Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN BILL.

Captain CAZALET: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Government support the principle contained in the Nationality of Married Women Bill, he will give facilities for the progress of this Bill during the present Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can hold out no hope of time being found for the further discussion of private Members' Bills. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the question of the nationality of married women is to be discussed at the International Conference on the Codification of International Law now sitting at The Hague.

Captain CAZALET: In view of the fact that this Bill is entirely non-controversial, will the Prime Minister promise to give it such assistance as he can?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is perfectly obvious that, if this law is to be changed, it must be done by a Government Bill, after consultation with the Dominions, and arrangements with foreign countries.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITE: Are we to understand that the discussion on the Shop Hours Act tomorrow will be an academic discussion and nothing else?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Captain EDEN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to make any statement as to the progress of the Five-Power Naval Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: No useful purpose would be served by any statement at the present juncture.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Does the Prime Minister not think that a very useful purpose would be served by the country knowing what is going on?

Colonel GRETTON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if the American delegates at
the Naval Conference are in agreement with the British Government as to the naval strength to establish parity with the United States of America; and, if so, what are the principles and the facts of that agreement?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that it would be in the interests of the Conference for me to enter into details of its business at the present time.

Colonel GRETTON: Is the Prime Minister aware that very definite statements are being made in the public Press, apparently communicated from the United States of America, and can he give the House some information as to whether those statements are correct?

The PRIME MINISTER: The only information that I can give to the House is that the House should not believe nine-tenths of the statements published in the public Press.

Captain EDEN: Seeing that information is given from time to time by the heads of foreign delegations and by himself, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he might take us more fully into his confidence?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that, as a matter of fact, that statement is quite accurate.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN PROCEEDINGS.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government proposes to legislate on the basis of the Report of the Crown Proceedings Committee; and, if so, whether time will be found for a Bill this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the present state of public business, I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. MANDER: 50.
asked the Prime-Minister whether he will request the Economic Advisory Council to prepare, in view of the meeting of the Imperial Conference in the autumn, a scheme for the economic development of the Empire embodying the largest possible measure
of general agreement amongst all parties in this country and omitting proposals which are highly controversial?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have been considering for some time the economic matters which they might suggest for discussion at the Imperial Conference, and they will omit to take no well-considered advice available for their guidance.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEES (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. WHITE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he will refer to the Committee considering the relationship of different forms of social insurance the question of the economy and public convenience to be derived from a policy directed to housing the local administration of all forms of public assistance in one building?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. It would, I think, be premature to deal with the question of accommodation until the larger issues of policy involved in the inquiry referred to have been decided.

COUNTY AND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCILS (MEDICAL MEMBERS).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 75.
asked the Minister of Health if he will introduce a short indemnifying Bill to exempt present sitting medical members of county and county borough councils from their disabilities to act as from 1st April next during the remainder of their present period of office, pending the reconsideration or reorganisation of the methods of payment to medical practitioners for minor medical services rendered on behalf of local authorities in the course of their private practice?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Greenwood): I regret that I am not able to comply with the suggestion, and would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on the 6th ultimo to the hon. Member for Banff (Major Wood).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 76.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in rural parts of the country generally, and particularly in such rural counties as the county of Huntingdon, all practising
medical practitioners are rendered ineligible for service as members of county councils by the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, and that, therefore, such councils as desire to have medical members, whether co-opted or elected, for their public health, maternity and child welfare, and Midwives Acts, mental deficiency and other committees are unable to obtain them; and will he take this question into consideration?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Legislation would be required to deal with the matter raised by the hon. and gallant Member, and I am afraid that I can give no undertaking as to 6uch legislation.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: If a one Clause Bill is introduced to "remove any inconvenience temporarily and enable these officers to carry out their duties during the remainder of their term of office, which is obviously desired by the electorate, will the right hon. Gentleman try to give facilities?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There are only 11 days to go before the new Act comes into operation, and the local authorities have already made their arrangements.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: A great deal can be done in that time.

AUDIT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) ACT.

Mr. MARCUS: 88.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to repeal the Audit (Local Authorities) Act, 1927; and, if so, when the necessary legislation is likely to be introduced?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot undertake at the present time to introduce legislation on this subject in view of the pressure of Parliamentary business.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: If the right hon. Gentleman had the time, would he do it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I should be delighted to have the opportunity.

OFFICERS (DISMISSAL).

Mr. MARCUS: 89.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the recommendations of the Onslow Commission on Local Government, he intends to introduce legislation to alter the position created by the decision in the case of Brown v. Dagenham Urban District
Council, whereby certain local government officers are liable to be dismissed without notice or disclosure of reason, and contrary to the terms of contracts of service?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I hope to ask Parliament to deal with this, among other recommendations of the Royal Commission, when time permits.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister what action His Majesty's Government intends to take concerning the Channel tunnel?

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 56 and 57.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the favourable nature of the report of the Channel Tunnel Committee, he will cause negotiations to be commenced at an early date with the French Government, with a view to settling the necessary legal and administrative questions on which agreement must be reached before the construction of the tunnel can be begun;
(2) whether the Channel Tunnel Report has yet been submitted to the Committee of Imperial Defence; and whether, in the event of their report being not unfavourable, he will take the necessary steps to ensure that the work of construction shall be commenced at the earliest possible date?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government is at present studying the report. The observations of the Committee of Imperial Defence will, of course, be asked for. So soon as a decision is reached, it will be communicated to the House.

Mr. MALONE: Will the Government, when referring this matter to the Committee of Imperial Defence, also remind them of the existence of the Kellogg Pact?

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to carry out the undertaking given by his predecessor, that, after the economic aspects had been inquired into, if they were satisfactory, there would be an inquiry into the political and strategic aspects?

The PRIME MINISTER: All I can say is that the fullest consideration will be given to the subject, in consultation with those who are interested in it and who have to bear the responsibility for any step that His Majesty's Government may take.

Mr. SMITH: As so many industrialists in the country are of opinion that the building of this Channel Tunnel is long overdue, having regard to the additional trade that might be done, especially with Southern Europe, will the right hon Gentleman do his utmost to avoid any further delay in the building of the Tunnel?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the Prime Minister consider the views of the Chambers of Commerce and local authorities of English holiday resorts?

Colonel ASHLEY: Whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees or not with the report, will he say definitely that the Government will find the money?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole matter is under consideration at the present moment. The recommendation of the Committee is that the Government should not find any money for the Tunnel.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTED FOODSTUFFS (CONTROL BOARD).

Sir K. WOOD: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes this Session to give facilities for parliamentary proposals to set up a controlling import board with powers for regulating imports of foodstuffs?

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the scheme referred to is of a nature which precludes me from assuming that any little Parliamentary time now at my disposal would be sufficient to pass it into law this Session.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday morning warm approval of this project was expressed by the new official capitalist organ of the Labour party?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAST PROTECTION BILL.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state if he proposes to proceed with the further stages of the Coast Protection Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to what I have already said in reply to questions on this subject. The position is unchanged.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If we are not going to have any facilities for private Members' Bills, had we not better take some of the Government's Measures?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already told the hon. and gallant Member that, if the opposition to the Bill could be reduced within reasonable compass, I should consider proceeding with the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDITERRANEAN.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that His Majesty's Government will not enter into any engagements involving sanctions or blockade in the Mediterranean which go in any way beyond the letter of the Covenant of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have neither contemplated nor discussed any question of sanctions or blockade in the Mediterranean.

Mr. ANGELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to fulfil, without any abatement whatsoever, all the obligations of the Covenant of the League?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether the House will be given an opportunity of debating the Report of the Palestine Commission before Easter; and whether the Government adhere to the definitions of policy and obligations under the Palestine Mandate set out in the White Paper of 1922?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the right hon. Member was informed on the 17th March, the Secretary of State is consulting the High Commissioner as to the date
of publication. In the circumstances, I am not yet able to say what arrangements can be made to meet the desire for a Debate on the subject. With regard to the second part of the question, it is clear that, at the present moment, any general declaration of policy, beyond what has already been made, would be premature.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

BLIND WELFARE.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 68.
asked the Minister of Health if he intends to pay to the voluntary societies the half-yearly grants for the blind as usual on 31st March next?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The grants pay able by my Department for the welfare of the blind during the current financial year have already been paid in the majority of cases. In the remaining cases the grants will be paid before the 31st March.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Am I right in concluding, from that statement, that there has been no change in any case?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Not so far as I am aware.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 91.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that great difficulty will be experienced by voluntary associations for the blind owing to his refusal to make the second payment due from him for the current year and that the amount due will have to be found either by the associations or by the county councils; whether he can state the amount which will be saved by the non-payment of these grants; and if he will reconsider his draft scheme?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not aware that difficulty will be experienced by voluntary associations owing to the change effected by the Local Government Act. These associations have received a year's Exchequer grant from my Department during the present year, and they will receive a full year's contribution from the local authorities during the coming and succeeding years. As regards the second and third parts of the question, the equivalent of a full year's grant payable to the associations is included in the consolidated Exchequer
grant to be paid to local authorities under the Local Government Act during 1930–31, and no question of a saving to the Exchequer or of loss to the local authorities arises. I see no reason to reconsider the scheme which has been made under Section 102 (1) of the Act.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many county councils and voluntary associations are of opinion that they will lose six months' grant?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have done my best on several occasions to explain that that is really not so. It needs a blackboard to demonstrate it to a number of people.

ASYLUM OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether the actuarial investigation into the pension position of asylum officers under the Asylum Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, and the Asylum Certified Institutions (Officers' Pensions) Act, 1919, has now completed its work; and, in that case, what decision has been reached?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have this report accelerated?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that it is now in the hands of the auditors, who are investigating it. I will see that there is no delay.

DAIRY CATTLE (SHOWS).

Mr. BROAD: 90.
asked the Minister of Health what communications passed between his Department and the British Dairy Farmers' Association prior to the issue of his circular prohibiting the exhibition of tuberculin-tested cattle at shows?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My Department wrote to this Association on 19th November, 1928, saying that it had been brought to their notice that animals from licensed herds were exhibited at the Islington Dairy Show and that the condition as to separation from other cattle was not complied with. The letter said that the Department would be very re-
luctant to withdraw permission for the exhibition of such animals at the Show and represented strongly that proper arrangements for separation should be made in future. After a reminder had been sent and acknowledged, the Association replied on 22nd August, 1929, saying that a committee had considered three possible courses for meeting the Ministry's requirements but had not adopted any of them. A conference was then arranged for 16th September, 1929, between representatives of the Association (including the Secretary) and officers of my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture. Various suggestions were discussed but not adopted, and it was made clear that the Association did not feel themselves able to comply with the Ministry's requirements. After further discussion with the Producers' Association and the Ministry of Agriculture, I wrote to the British Dairy Farmers' Association on 16th February communicating my decision and enclosing a copy of the circular.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: If it is undesirable that cattle of this description should be allowed to be sent to shows, is it not also a danger for the cattle if people suffering from this disease attend, and will the right hon. Gentleman have them all examined on entrance?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The point at issue is whether I made a true statement last Thursday or not, and the major question does not arise on this.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES (MILK).

Mr. WILFRID WHITELEY: 92.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the number of epidemics of infectious disease in England and Wales during the last three years which have been attributed to milk; what was the nature of the epidemics; and the annual number of cases and of deaths due to the epidemics?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Complete particulars of the number of epidemics of infectious disease attributed to milk are not available, but my hon. Friend will find such information as is available in the Reports of the Chief Medical Officer of my Department for the years in question. The total numbers of notified cases of certain infectious diseases and the
numbers of deaths from these diseases are contained in the periodical returns of the Registrar-General, but there are no separate figures of the cases in which the disease was attributed to milk.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Major NATHAN: 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to state when he proposes to introduce the projected Bill dealing with slum clearance?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not in a position to fix the precise date, but I hope that it will be upon a very early day.

Major NATHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman still pursuing the policy of holding up approval of all schemes for rehousing, pending the projected legislation?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Only in so far as the law does not permit me to give permission to local authorities.

Major NATHAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman, in fact, approved of any schemes, or has he circularised the local authorities informing them that he does not propose to do so?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have approved of certain schemes which do not conflict with the law.

LAND ACQUISITION.

Mr. SAWYER: 82.
asked the Minister of Health what has been the total expenditure incurred since 1918 by local authorities in acquiring land for housing schemes under the Housing Acts, and what is the total acreage acquired; what proportion of that expenditure and acreage had reference to compulsory acquisition decided at arbitration; and, in respect of such compulsory acquisition, what was the total amount of legal costs falling upon public funds in addition to the actual cost of the land?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Since 1918, local authorities have acquired 73,033 acres of land under the Housing Acts at a total capital cost of approximately £15,200,000.
I regret that the particulars asked for in the latter part of the question are not available.

BUILDING MATERIALS (FOREIGN NAILS).

Major COLVILLE: 85.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that large quantities of foreign wire nails are used in State-aided housing schemes; and if he will take steps to ensure that wherever possible articles of British make shall be specified?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that, under Section 10 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, the Minister of Health is prohibited from imposing any condition which would prevent materials from being purchased in the cheapest market either at home or abroad. I have, however, recently issued a circular, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member, urging local authorities to make use, to the utmost extent practicable, of goods and materials of home production or manufacture.

Major COLVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure that British materials shall be used wherever possible in these housing schemes?

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 77.
asked the Minister of Health the number of health and pensions insurance contributions received in respect of seamen employed of foreign-going ships for the half years ended July, 1928, and July, 1929, respectively?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The estimated numbers of health and pensions insurance contributions in respect of seamen resident in Great Britain and employed on foreign-going ships received in the half-years ended July, 1928, and July, 1929, were 2,328,000 and 1,910,000 respectively. These numbers do not, however, provide a, true basis of comparison owing to the change in January, 1929, from the stamped card system to the schedule system. The full effect of the latter system will not be apparent until it has been in operation for at least a year.

Mr. ARTHUR LAW: 83.
asked the Minister of Health if he is prepared to
make provision to prevent an insured contributor to the National Health Insurance being penalised by a defaulting employer who has not stamped his insurance card for the weeks when the member was employed?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Provision is already made under the National Health Insurance Act for the recovery of contributions from defaulting employers and for enabling benefits to be paid on the basis of contributions so recovered. In addition, where an insured person has suffered any loss of benefit through his employer's default he, or his approved society acting on his behalf, is entitled under Section 98 of the Act to recover from the employer the amount lost.

Mr. THORNE: 87.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of a Luton contractor who has been summoned for the non-stamping of six Sheffield workmen's health insurance cards; and whether the workmen have suffered loss of benefit in consequence?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The employer in this case has been fined and ordered to pay the contributions due. I have no information as to any loss of health insurance benefits in consequence of his default, but if there has been any such loss the workmen have a statutory right to recover from him the amount of benefit lost.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING RELIEF.

Sir K. WOOD: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce any measure to relieve householders and shopkeepers of any portion of their rates?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not proposing to extend the principle of de-rating.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember how his heart used to bleed for those ratepayers?

Mr. MORLEY: 86.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received any complaints from local governing bodies respecting the extra burdens thrown upon them by the scheme of de-rating?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Although no formal complaints of the kind referred to have been received, I understand that
there is in the minds of many of the rating authorities some uncertainty as to the effect of the changes brought about by the Local Government Act, 1929. It is, however, as yet too early to make a general statement on the subject.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of local authorities have been compelled to raise their rates from 2d. to 1s. in consequence of de-rating?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Mr. SAWYER: 80.
asked the Minister of Health how many members of the staff at his Department are engaged upon work in connection with local authorities' housing schemes; and what has been the amount of Departmental expenditure in salaries, etc., upon such work during the past 12 months?

Mr. GREENWOOD: 49 members of the staff of my Department are engaged on work under the Housing Acts. The expenditure on salaries, etc., during the present financial year is approximately £23,000.

Mr. SAWYER: 81.
asked the Minister of Health what is the annual expenditure incurred by his Department in connection with town-planning schemes and their preparation; the number of his staff engaged in such work; and how many town-planning schemes have actually been adopted and are in operation?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The number of staff at present employed is 29, and the expenditure for the current financial year will amount approximately to £13,500. The number of town-planning schemes approved and in operation is 34. In addition 32 schemes have been submitted and are under consideration, 150 preliminary statements have been approved and another 141 have been submitted and are being examined, and in 492 other cases resolutions to prepare schemes have been passed and proposals are in various stages of consideration. Further, appeals on a number of town-planning matters have to be decided by me.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Has there been any increase in the staff?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Not so far as I remember.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW (TEST WORK, HULL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 84.
asked the Minister of Health why he has agreed to an increase in test work for men seeking relief from the Hull guardians?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The slight increase in the hours adopted by the guardians was part of a general reorganisation of test work which appeared to me to be an improvement on previous arrangements.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this increased test work is particularly onerous on dock labourers in view of the hours it imposes and the times they have to seek work, and is creating hardship for these men, and will he have the matter looked into again?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As I have already promised to meet the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on this matter, I hardly think it is necessary to occupy the time of the House in discussing it now.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he looked into the matter more carefully before approving such increases of test work, none of our time would be wasted?

Captain GUNSTON: Is stone breaking included in this test work?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Not so far as I am aware.

Oral Answers to Questions — STAMP DUTY (DIVIDENDS).

Mr. GARDNER: 95.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that slips are sent by companies to banks re payment of dividends to depositors without any twopenny embossed stamp, and that shareholders seldom, if ever, send receipts to companies for receipt of dividends; and whether he will take steps, under the new Finance Act, to compel such persons to pay Stamp Duty?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): As regards the first part of the question, I am advised that slips of the kind which my hon. Friend has in mind do not attract Stamp Duty. As regards the
second, he is no doubt aware that the payee's endorsement of his name on a dividend warrant is not liable to Receipt Stamp Duty. If his suggestion is that the law should be altered so as to make it compulsory to give a receipt in cases where the payer does not require one, I fear that his suggestion is impracticable.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS (TAX).

Mr. SMITHERS: 96.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to Section II (i) of the D'Abernon Report with regard to the 2 per cent. tax levied on foreign loans; and whether he will consider the advisability of removing this tax in the near future?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am aware of the views expressed by the D'Abernon Mission on this matter, hut I can make no forecast of what decision may be reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LOAN INTEREST).

Captain W. G. HALL: 98.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any change is contemplated in the rates of interest at which loans may be made out of the Local Loans Fund?

Mr. SIMON: 99.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the present rate of interest charged by the Public Works Loans Board to local authorities for loans for the purposes of housing construction; when the last alteration in the rate came into effect; and whether any decrease in the said rate of interest can now be made in view of the recent reductions in Bank Rates?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): Loans to local authorities for the purpose of housing construction are made at the minimum rate in force for the time being. Since the 15th October last that has been 5¼ per cent. per annum, but I am glad to be able to announce chat in view of the present monetary conditions it has been decided to reduce the minimum rate for local loans from 5¼ per cent. to 5 per cent. as from the 21st March. The other rates will at the same time be lowered by ¼ per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: May I make a personal explanation in regard to a matter which arose between the Minister of Health and myself on 13th March. I should like to say at once that I never intended to impute bad faith to the Minister when I thought at the time that his answer was incorrect. On looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT, I find that my question was misunderstood. The misapprehension arose last Thursday, because the Minister was dealing with a discussion between the British Dairy Farmers' Association last September, five months before the Order was issued, and I had in mind the consultation as to the actual Order. I desire to say that, while accepting that the statement of the Minister was made in good faith, I wish to give notice that I will raise this question at the first available opportunity, so that the position of the British Dairy Farmers' Association may be made perfectly clear.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what the Business will be on next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, and to takes Votes A, 1, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 in Committee. The Committee of Ways and Means Resolutions will also be taken.
Tuesday will be the 3rd Allotted Supply Day, and I hope that it will be possible to complete the Report stage of the Air, Navy and Army Votes which have been taken in Committee. The Report of Ways and Means Resolutions will also be taken.
Wednesday: Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading. The subject of Beam Wireless Telephony will be discussed, and possibly other subjects.
Thursday: Consolidated Fund Bill, further stages. I am not yet in a position to announce the subject to be discussed on that occasion.
Friday: Committee stage of the Money Resolution relating to Unemployment Insurance, which will be placed on the
Paper to-morrow. The White Paper will also be circulated to-morrow.
On any day, if time permits, other Orders may be taken.
Ordered,
That the Proceedings in Committee on the Coal Mines Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

BILLS REPORTED.

BRISTOL CORPORATION (NO. 1) BILL (CERTIFIED BILL).

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

READING CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL).

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL (CERTIFIED BILL).

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

CANAL BOATS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 9th May, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

COQUET FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

INVERGORDON WATER SUPPLY BILL,

"to confirm certain agreements entered into by the Admiralty, the Town Council of the Burgh of Invergordon, and the County Council of the County of Ross and Cromarty," presented by Mr. Ammon; supported by Mr. George Hall; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Bill and the Mock Auctions Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Railways (Valuation for Rating Bill): Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Benson, Mr. Ernest Brown, Captain Cazalet, Mr. Compton, Colonel Sir George Courthope, Mr. Fielden, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Lang, Miss Lawrence, Mr. McEntee, Sir Boyd Merriman, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, Miss Wilkinson, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Bill): Mr. Bowen, Mr. Broad, Major Elliot, Captain Hacking, Mr. Hoffman, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Frank Owen, Mr. Short, Mr. James Stewart, and Mr. Womersley.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Mock Auctions Bill): Colonel Burton, Mr. Duckworth, Lord Erskine, Mr. Hollins, Mr. Frank Owen, Mr. Sandham, Mr. Short, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Womersley.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

EARL OF BALFOUR.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The newspapers this morning show the national sorrow, widespread and deep, at the death of Lord Balfour, and, before we resume the clashes and the conflicts, I ask the House of Commons to unite in doing homage to the work and the memory of one who sat in this House for just short of half-a-century and who led it for nearly 12 years. As was befitting, while his voice was heard here and his hand was felt in office, he was the centre of many a hot battle, both of gallant assault and of cautious defence. The dust of some of them has not altogether cleared away, and our minds at this moment wander back to those battle days, and we see him in imagination standing at this Box and at that leading his party with so much distinction.
Those who were in those battles and who felt the hot spirit of the conflict never denied their admiration for the leader. Who had more resource? Who had finer skill? Who was more surprising in the deftness of his strokes and his counter-strokes? Who sniffed the fight with more zest, and yet who struck a deadlier blow with more disarming charm? Who withered an opponent with more graceful suavity? It has been said that the world was too lenient to him; that he knew none of the oppressive experiences of hard circumstances. He was indeed the embodiment of the leisured mind, expansive, hospitable, curious, interesting, cultured; the product of the garden rather than of the field or moorland. He saw much life from afar. I remember when by chance the "Defence of Philosophic Doubt" came into my hands and I read it on my way out and home from school, it mirrored to me a most unfamiliar type of mind; it was a revelation of a new being, a new world over which the winds never blew loudly, so remote from mine and yet so attractive, so baffling in its cleverness, so enticing in its movement of thought and so delightfully provoking to direct contrary convictions.
There is a stimulating charm and sobering wisdom in such a personality. It is always interesting. It is always young. It is always on the pilgrim way
in search of knowledge and of truth, even if its pilgrim way is softly carpeted. That is why Lord Balfour, the doughty politician, the man of affairs, the party leader, the object of angry attack, never lost his personality in his work. His politics were a philosophy; his methods were intellectual plans. He himself was always a genuine living being. His mind was so alert and so inquisitive that years did not make him an old man. He was as interested in the life and thought of the world at 80 as he was at 20. There are few men who can grow old with good grace, says Richard Steele. One of these men was Arthur Balfour.
We cannot venture as yet to sum up his public services. For the last 60 years he has played a part in every movement of our national life. At an age when he might have enjoyed the serenity of a peaceful afternoon and evening he returned to activity on the national call, and in these later years as an elder statesman, coming again to the battle, looking upon events with no blazing eye but calmly realistic, he has had more influence than ever before on our public life.
His work for the League of Nations is embedded in its foundations. His handwriting is enshrined in the charter of freedom now being developed by our Dominions. The world which has emerged from the War bears his name on many of its gateway". His insight is recorded in the happier relations which grew up between ourselves and the United States of America. Writing to Mr. Page, the American Ambassador in London in 1918, he says:
I have now lived a long life, and most of my energies have been expended in political work, but, if I have been fortunate enough to contribute even in the smallest degree to drawing closer the bonds that unite our two countries, I shall have done something compared with which all else that I may have attempted counts in my eyes as nothing.
The last message I had from him was a generous greeting on my return from America last year. Now, Mr. Speaker, his long day has closed, and he has passed away. Beyond these portals is peace.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: The Prime Minister's eloquent testimony will have profoundly moved the House. It is a difficult task in a few words to give to
those who did not know Arthur Balfour an idea of what the man was, what he did, and what he thought. He was a Cabinet Minister four years before any single Member now sitting in this House was a Member of this Assembly. He had been 34 years a Member of this House when I entered. It is 52 years since he went in an official capacity with Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury to the Berlin Congress. He entered Paris in the first train which entered that city after the fall of the Commune, and a short time after William of Prussia was proclaimed Emperor of Germany in Versailles. In that very palace of Versailles 48 years later he was to be present with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) as a signatory to the Peace Treaty after the Great War. He led his party in this House for 21 years, and, if there be one characteristic which was with him all his life in politics and in every aspect of his life, it was his rare courage, physical and moral; a courage shown during those years when he held the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, when he had to administer the Crimes Act. Even in those bitter fights he did much for Ireland in the congested districts, never lost sight of her future, and always retained the respect, even a popularity, among the Irish Members in this House and among the people of Ireland themselves. He faced, during the short time of his own Administration, two problems that had baffled statesmen to that date, education and licensing, and laid the foundations on which all subsequent work in either direction has been accomplised. But, perhaps, the greatest work he did at that time was the formation of the Committee of Imperial Defence, to which, I have no doubt, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) may desire to allude when he speaks, because his knowledge of the part that Mr. Balfour played during the War is so much greater than my own. His loyalty was a rare characteristic, rare, I mean, in this sense: Yon saw him retire from the leadership of his party, you saw him succeeded by a man many years his junior, and his junior in experience of office and of Parliament. He did not, as so many leaders
do when they retire, leave the House of Commons. He remained a private Member, but he always served his successors with unquestioned loyalty, and his services were always at the disposal of the party bringing together recalcitrant members and healing any breach which might make itself evident in the composition of the party.
At 63 he retired from the leadership, and his career appeared to lave finished. The career of the statesman in party politics was finished, but there, was a glorious aftermath, which, I believe, will be remembered as long as the history of this country is written, that is, his career as a national statesman both in and out of office from the first day of the War until the last day of his life. He served at the Admiralty and at the Foreign Office. He went on a special mission to America in the middle of the War, a man 70 years of age. He represented this country at the Washington Conference. As the Prime Minister said, no man took a more prominent part than he, and no man could have taken it then as he did at the League of Nations in those early and difficult days. He interested himself in the Jews, and was a powerful advocate of that national home which he did more than any living statesman to secure for them. He set up, during the period of the last administration, on lines similar to those of the Committee of Imperial Defence, the Committee of Civil Research.
I want here to say a word on one aspect of Arthur Balfour which I have hardly seen commented upon at all in any life of him which has appeared this morning. There have been great Parliamentarians, and there have been great dialecticians. It is not for me to attempt here to classify them. Suffice it to say that he holds place amongst the highest and the most distinguished. But there was one thing which he possessed which no English statesman, to my knowledge, has ever possessed, and which no English statesman possesses to-day, that is the scientific mind, the mind trained in scientific methods, and many of his efforts at intermittent periods during his life, and more towards the end of it were directed, as Lord Haldane's were, into making the government of this country and of the Empire, and the administration of this country and of the Empire, make use of
natural knowledge. He kept himself abreast of all modern scientific thought. He had been accustomed to do that from his youth, and in his views as a statesman he was far ahead of his time.
It is 30 years since he brought into being in its present form the National Physical Laboratory, and he was more responsible than any statesman for having co-ordinated, under the Privy Council, the various branches of scientific and medical research, and it was always his desire to bring in agricultural research as well. He wished all men who looked with pride upon the estate of man to be convinced that in science is to be found the most powerful engine for the material prosperity and the health of mankind, and that was why he devoted so much time in setting on foot inquiries into those problems of health in the Tropics, of pests which devastate crops and herds, and make whole, vast territories of the earth infertile and infelicitous for man to live in. His mind was of a wide and comprehensive nature. He realised that the great field of science all through Africa and all through the East was unscratched, and he wished to turn the minds of men towards it, and bring workers into the field. Among the last regrets, and the few regrets he could have had in his life, was this, that he had not years ago, when in office, himself advanced more quickly and more surely into those regions into which he was trying to lead us during his last years.
What am I to say about the man? I suppose the first thing that struck everyone about Arthur Balfour, whether he knew him intimately or not, was that exquisite urbanity and courtesy, a courtesy not merely of manner, a courtesy which those who knew him well knew to be a courtesy of the whole heart and spirit. No finer intellect, no greater dialectician has been engaged in politics. It was said of Mr. Asquith that he was the last of the Romans. It might be said that Arthur Balfour was the last of the Athenians. His mind was an all-embracing mind that took all knowledge for its province, and he would probe, analyse and apply that acute scepticism in the true sense, and not the popular sense of that much-abused word, to all subjects which came before him. The things of the mind and not of the market place were what filled his thoughts, and it was because of that that he possessed
a peculiar detachment unlike most men of his profession. If it be true that that detachment is not without drawbacks in public life, yet it was of immense value in counsel, and he proved, if any man did, that detachment of spirit is attainable without withdrawing yourself from all the clamour and the vulgarity inseparable from that dusty arena in which most of our days are spent.
He was a lover of science, a lover of music, and a lover of philosophy. Of philosophy I have no time to speak, nor am I competent to speak of it, but I will say one thing that always struck me, that in that, as in all else, his fine courage was in evidence. There are fashions in philosophy. There is orthodoxy in philosophy, and the man who runs counter to orthodoxy in intellectual thought is a bold man. With Arthur Balfour, the sense of spiritual values that was always with him made him critical of that materialistic philosophy which was dominant in England at the time when he was a young man. He pursued his own lines of thought fearlessly and boldly. There was in him no vanity, a complete lack of self-consciousness, and there was, perhaps rather hidden from the world, an intense love of his own country, an intense pride in her, and an intense belief in her for his own country herself, for the part she was playing in the world, for the part she would play in the world, and he visualised, as the Prime Minister said, that co-operation of the English-speaking peoples to which we all look forward as one of the securities of the peace and progress of the world. I would say that I am confident that America will mourn Arthur Balfour no less truly than we do.
When I saw him only a week ago last Friday, the body was frail, the end was near, but the mind was burning as clearly and brightly as ever—keen, eager, interested. I have seen him often during these last few months. Our conversations have related little to the past. He wanted to hear all that was going on. He was eager to learn of reputations being made in this House amongst all parties. He looked to the future, and he would trace where the currents of thought in all parts of the country were leading. He thought much in those last months of the great things of the country
and the Empire. India was much in his thoughts, too. It was late when I came into his life, but he is one of those men of whom I say unaffectedly and naturally, I was proud of his friendship. We do not sorrow to-day for him. His was a full life. He has come home bringing his sheaves with him, and at these times there always come into my mind those words of Andrew Marvell:
But at my back I always hear,
Time's winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie,
Deserts of vast eternity.
Into that vast eternity, one by one, our great men are passing, and they are at peace. They would not have us mourn them; they would have us work while it is yet day and carry on as far as we are able the great traditions which they have left us. For us the dust and the struggle for a little longer, and the feelings which surge up in our breast to-day and which animate the whole House are feelings common to the human race, feelings which have existed from the beginning of time. Across the centuries, like the sound of a passing bell, rings the message of the Roman Emperor to his people:
Principes mortales, rempublicam œternam esse; Proin repeterent sollemnia.
Princes die; the State is eternal. Let us take up our duties.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When the news reached me of the death of Lord Balfour I was discharging a certain engagement down in Wales, but I felt that I would like to be present to pay my humble tribute of respect to the memory of the great statesman who has passed away. I was very struck at a meeting last night, when the announcement of Lord Balfour's death was made, how widespread and how deep was the respect for him among all classes of the community. In him, the last of the great statesmen of the Victorian era has passed away, and we seem, in his death, to have finally severed a link with that great epoch. It was an era of high statesmanship in this country. There was no country in the world that could boast such an era of statesmen of supreme quality. When I entered this House, there were among the leaders on both sides, here and in the Upper House, at least a dozen men who from their experience, from their great abilities and from their personalities could have filled
with distinction the position of chief Minister of the Crown. Among those Lord Balfour will always take high place. In the variety as well as the quality of his intellectual needs, in his unselfish devotion to the services of his country, in courage, none excelled him among them all. In personal charm, in serenity of temperament there was none equal to him among them. As has been very truly said by the Leader of the Opposition, that personal charm was not superficial. It came from a genuine kindliness of heart. His serenity was not affectation; it came from a courage that never knew craven fear, which enabled him to face the problems of life, yea, and the mystery of death, with a dauntless heart.
I have had perhaps a longer and more varied opportunity than anyone in this House of measuring his great powers. I was in this House with him for 32 years. He, I think with Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and Lord Randolph Churchill, and, of course, Mr. Gladstone, were great towering figures at that time. I had also the privilege of serving with him for 7½ years as a colleague in two Administrations, and he was also my principal colleague in the great Peace Conference at Versailles. At every stage and in every aspect, in every sphere, my admiration for him grew, the more I knew him—and my real attachment for him.
Something has been said about his Parliamentary gifts. He was, indeed, a superb Parliamentary debater; superb in his prime. There was hardly anything comparable to the deftness, skill, readiness and power which he displayed. I would rank him with Mr. Gladstone as the two most formidable Parliamentary debaters that I have ever heard in this House, and I might say I suffered at the hands and from the qualities of both. I knew from both sides what their dexterity in the use of the two-edged sword might mean. A prepared speech he always regarded as a bore, and he gave the impression, when a speech was prepared, of a man who was wondering when that anguish would come to an end. When he half rose from the place occupied by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, leant forward, and picked up two or three of those long envelopes, took out a fountain pen, and started making notes, we all knew of the treat which was in store for us, and that in a short time we should be enjoying a
supreme exhibition of the Parliamentary art of debate. I have never seen a man who had such a ready and complete command of all his faculties. At any and every moment they were there, right to his order and sprang to his command. After all, the art of the Parliamentary debater is a more or less ephemeral one which is like that of the actor. It may have results which are temporary, but they may be permanent.
The greater part of Lord Balfour's career—and I am not sure that was not indicated by the Leader of the Opposition in his eloquent speech—came after he had retired from the arena as a gladiator. Years afterwards, his gifts—and I think the Prime Minister in his extremely appealing and eloquent speech indicated the same thing—his gifts were better adapted to the part which he played during the War and after the War than they were to the supreme position of party leader which he held. It gave him a free play for his faculties, which were rich. They were not cribbed by the exigencies of any temporary professional or partisan play. He was able to take a broader, freer, less restricted view. His faculties were at their best when he applied them to the grave problems of the country and to the post-War period. I saw him then a good deal. I saw him before he joined the first Coalition Ministry. He helped very largely in adjusting certain difficulties in connection with trade union regulations in the matter of munitions. But I saw more of him when he was a member of the second Administration, and there I saw a courage that never flinched or quailed in the darkest moments; a calm that was never flustered. There he added to his long experience of affairs his penetrating intellect and his ripe judgment, and I felt then, and I feel more and more as I remember those days, that he was one of the most valuable assets which the British Empire had during those terrible days through which we have passed.
After the War, when passions were still raging, when volcanic fires were still un-quenched, his calm judgment was a
treasure. In Paris, I see it suggested to-day that he had no part there. That is not true. This is not the time to correct inaccuracies in biographical notices. I never took any step there without being in constant consultation with him, and I know the value of his judgment. Whether in Paris, in America, or, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, in the League of Nations at Geneva, he was during those years the outstanding representative of Britain outside our shores, and we owe a good deal more than we know to that fact. His fine intelligence, his tact, his urbane dignity, his freedom from irritating prejudices, and his personal fascination—these qualities everywhere made a deep impression on all of every race with whom he came in contact. He was a great gentleman, and everybody realised that when they came into touch with him. It is not too much to say that his representation of Britain in the counsels of the nations added to the weight and influence of this country.
There were three outstanding questions which will give him a lasting name in history, and it is very remarkable that they took place 10 years after his retirement from a great leadership and years after he had passed his seventieth birthday. One of them was the Washington Conference, the success of which was largely attributable to the wonderful courage with which he accepted the responsibility of a bold decision that might easily have provoked adverse comment in these islands. It was the only disarmament conference that has ever disarmed. I am not referring to the present conference, but to past conferences. It was the only conference that had ever met that ended in disarmament and put an end to the competition in those cumbrous and costly battleships which had such a share of responsibility in provoking the Great War. That was largely due to his great courage.
There are two other events associated with his name which are still in debate. Therefore I should not dwell upon them except to say that there is one thing that is not in debate or doubt and that is that they will have their place in history
and that his name will always be associated with them. One is the Balfour Declaration with regard to Palestine, which will always be remembered in the history of one of the greatest historic races of the world. The other is the Balfour Note. Whatever may be said about the Balfour Note, it will pass into history. It has formed the subject matter of great conferences, and it was the only offer ever made by a creditor country that the huge international debts of the War should be wiped out. It was a great gesture, worthily made by a great man.
The Leader of the Opposition said that he only came late into his life. Twenty-eight years ago, sitting where my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is now sitting, night after night for six months, it was my duty to criticise and attack a Measure which Lord Balfour was piloting through this House. From May until December, three or four nights every week until 12 o'clock and very often until three o'clock in the morning, he sat on the Treasury Bench getting his Bill through, and I was here criticising it. At the end of it we were friends, and I am proud of it. From that friend ship he never swerved. He did me many acts of kindness. I mourn his loss as the loss of a personal friend. His friendship I retained to the very end. I had the painful privilege of seeing him very shortly before his death. He was courageous, serene, even gay. He faced death, not with a boastful gaiety, but with a confident gaiety. In a long life of unceasing political conflict one makes many enemies and not too many friends. I mourn the loss of one with whose friendship I was deeply honoured, but I am here to pay my humble tribute on wider grounds than that. A man of great and spotless renown has passed away from amongst us. His countrymen will always think of him, to the ends of the earth, not only as one who attained high distinction in an honoured calling, but as one who in doing so conferred an added distinction on that calling itself.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 11th March.]

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions of district scheme.)

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 7, to leave out paragraph (f).
I must ask for the sympathy of hon. Members for myself, a mere back bencher, who has to rise immediately after the House has listened to three most eloquent speeches in tribute to a man whose loss the whole country is grieving to-day. I think I am expressing the feelings of every Member in the House when I say with what great pleasure we see that our friend the President of the Board of Trade is again with us. We sincerely hope that his visit to Geneva has considerably improved his health. We recognise that he may have come back with some sense of disappointment in that he was not as fully successful at Geneva as he would have liked, but possibly it will console him to know that his lack of success is very much appreciated on these benches. Although he may not know it, he has won from hon. Members on these benches not only our sincere appreciation but our personal liking.
In connection with the Amendment, the Committee will realise, perhaps with some regret, that the agricultural worm has again turned. The agricultural worm has risen, and on this occasion he is to be used as a bait to catch fish. How many of the fish will nibble at the bait is unknown. How many of the fish will be ultimately landed is unknown. I understand that after what happened last week those then landed having been returned to smooth waters a good many of the fish who nibbled then at the bait are afraid of doing so again, fearing this time that they will be consumed. However, I am merely an agricultural worm and I will leave the capturing of the fish to the expert anglers about the Gangway.
This Bill is known throughout the country as the Dear Coal Bill. That stigma is undoubtedly true in relation to two proposals on the Bill; one which would have enabled a levy to be placed upon British coal to help the foreigner, and the other is the proposal which I seek to leave out to-day. It has been and is still the desire of those who sit on these benches to remove that stigma from the Bill, in the interests of the consumer. Last week the paragraph proposing the levy on British coal to help the foreigner was defeated. The Prime Minister said that that was not material, and that he would proceed with the Bill. It was not material, because what was lost on the swings in regard to the levy can be gained under the paragraph we are now discussing. This Clause states that every district scheme shall provide
for the determination … of the price below which every class of coal produced in the district may not be sold or supplied.
Under this paragraph, therefore, the loss of the levy can be made up, and British coal can be taxed in this country in order to subsidise the export of coal. I submit that what the Prime Minister lost last week on the swings, it is possible for him to gain this week on the roundabouts. The Committee decided last week against the first proposal to tax the Britisher for the benefit of the foreigner, and to me it is inconceivable that the Committee should not also oppose this paragraph. What has the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said on this question? Speaking in the Debate on the Second Reading, he said that the cutting down of the hours would increase the coal deficit by £25,000,000, and that that deficit was to be met either by reorganisation or by increased prices, and then he said:
The Government have chosen that crude, burdensome method, easy but pernicious, of merely putting up prices.
Later he said the Clause would add 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. per ton to the price charged to the domestic consumer. In another part of his speech, he said that the prices were to be fixed by the owners and that there was no protection to the consumer; and in yet another part of his speech he said:
We think that the other provisions are so thoroughly vicious that we must reserve to ourselves the most complete freedom to
deal with them in Committee."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1929; col. 1675, Vol. 233.]
I submit that the time has arrived to exercise that freedom in Committee to remove these vicious principles from this Bill, Surely the right hon. Gentleman will therefore go into the Lobby with us. If he fails to do so, we cannot but conclude that a bait has been offered that he considers of more importance than the interests of the mere agricultural worker.
What are the opinions of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel)? He said, on the Second Reading, that the main effects of the Bill would be to raise the price of coal, and he went on to say:
You are creating a coalowners' monopoly, with power to fix prices at their own will, prices which the poorest must pay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1929; col. 1309, Vol. 233.]
Again, the right hon. Gentleman took part in the Debate last week, and he then said this was the worst of many objectionable features of the Bill, and that it was a strangely inverted kind of Protection. He also said:
There have been many proposals for many years all through the centuries in this House for assisting the British manufacturer to meet foreign competition. To-night is the first occasion when a Government comes to the British Parliament in order to induce it to pass a Measure which will assist the foreign manufacturer to meet British competition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1930; col. 1212, Vol. 236.]
The right hon. Gentleman further described this provision as an excrescence upon the Bill, which he hoped the Committee would remove. That excrescence the Committee did remove, and it was largely due to the excellent speech made by the right hon. Gentleman himself. That excrescence is again on the Bill in this paragraph, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot but go with us into the Lobby to remove it. So much for the opinions of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench below me, but what about their backbench Members? When I put down this Amendment, it was backed by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and also by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith). Have they changed their opinions as to the necessity of this Clause during the last two or three days? The County of Hereford is represented in this House by two
Members, one in the North and the other in the South. My colleague in the South sits on the benches in front of me, and what does he say about the Bill? He said last week that the levy Clause was one of the most unfortunate provisions in a most deplorable Bill, which violated every principle of sound business, and that—

The CHAIRMAN: The levy Clause has been disposed of. We must keep now to the Amendment.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I obey your ruling, but I was submitting that the levy Clause and this Clause had the same purpose in view. I would suggest that, as the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. F. Owen) and I both agree, it would be good for him to say that the whole county of Hereford spoke with one voice in opposing this very deplorable Bill. What did another friend of mine, who was my opponent during the Election, the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) say? He said that the Government action was thoroughly reactionary and indefensible. Sitting on the benches in front of me is usually to be found my own Member, the Gentleman who represents me in this House, the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild), and what did he say? He said that this was a bad Bill, which was brought in to make coal dearer and not cheaper. Referring to the £23,000,000 that the late Government had paid as a subsidy to the coal industry, he said:
To-day the Labour Government are asking us to pay another subsidy—a more cruel subsidy than the last, because it will not fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers, but on the shoulders of those least able to pay it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1929; cols. 1334–5, Vol. 233.]

The CHAIRMAN: This is a Clause dealing with the determination of price. I cannot see how this question of subsidy now arises.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: The point that I desire to make is that the power given in this Clause to fix prices will give a power to charge which is equivalent to a subsidy. However, I will not proceed on that line, but I would suggest to my Member in this House, if he were here, that he should defer to my wishes—he is my Member—and vote with me. Is
the Committee prepared to piss a Clause in the Bill that will make it possible to charge an increased price for the, coal consumed by the British householder in order that coal may be sold cheaper abroad? Are we prepared to pass a Clause in a Bill that will enable this country to charge the steel and iron industry a bigger price in order that the steel industry in Belgium can buy their coal cheaper and with it send their steel into this country in competition with the man at whose expense they hive obtained that cheap coal? I suggest that if that is possible, it is absolutely astounding.
The evolution of industry will be carried upon the lines of co-ordination and rationalisation or amalgamation, and whether we like it or not, I think that will take place. The smaller units in industry will combine into larger units, and they again will combine into still larger units. When that takes place in the future, the capital and the labour in those industries will be able to look after themselves, and indeed they may unite in order to get benefits for the industry itself, but who will have to pay for those benefits but the consumer? I conceive it possible that if these amalgamations increase, the time may arrive when this House will have to institute some price-fixing scheme, because I suggest that we in this House have the particular duty of representing the consumer.
It is said by some hon. Members opposite that we on these benches represent the capital of this country, and that they, on those benches, represent the labour. That is not true, but what is true is that both we and they have one particular duty to perform, and that is to see to it that the consumers are sot exploited by these amalgamations. I am confident that hon. Members opposite will agree to that point of view, because the First Lord of the Admiralty has said that one of the first acts of a Socialist Government will be to introduce a Bill to deal with prices, and that an Anti-Trust Bill was in draft. Industrial amalgamations will continue, and this present Bill is one which will accelerate amalgamations in the coal industry.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment
and must argue for the deletion of this paragraph, without rambling over the whole Bill.

5.0 p.m.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: The purpose of my Amendment was to defeat a Clause whose purpose is that of fixing prices. I submit that a price-fixing Clause should be a Clause to protect the interests of the consumers, whereas the present Clause is not one to protect the consumers from being exploited, but is one which fixes prices and will compel the exploitation of the consumers by the coal industry. Why has this Clause been introduced? It is a Clause contrary to the very principles of both the Minister and his supporters, because it is a Clause brought in by a Socialist Government to compel the capitalist coalowner to exploit the public. I submit that this Clause has been brought forward reluctantly, under pressure from the Minister's supporters representing the coal industry. It is brought forward to enable a reduction of hours to take place in the coal industry, but the British consumer and British industry will have to pay for the benefit given to the coal industry. The coal industry is not the only distressed industry in this country. There are others equally distressed, such as cotton, and iron and steel. I leave the question of the effect of this provision upon other industries to more able speakers above the Gangway, because, as I have said, I am simply an agricultural worm and I can only speak as to its effects upon the industry of agriculture. Agriculture as an industry is a large consumer of coal. The agricultural labourer is a consumer of coal, and the agricultural industry is as much depressed as the coal industry. Labour in the agricultural industry is receiving, on the average, only 30s. a week, while labour in the coal industry is receiving an average of 48s. to 50s., and it is the purpose of this provision to increase that amount. Coal is selling at several shillings per ton above the pre-War level, whereas agricultural produce is selling at many shillings a ton below the pre-War level. This Bill is brought in for the purpose of increasing the cost of coal, in order that the coalowners may, voluntarily, maintain or increase the wages of the coal workers, but in agriculture, although we have these difficulties to contend with, we are bound by Statute to pay a fixed wage.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the Amendment. I am trying to be as lenient as possible, but it seems to me that while the hon. Gentleman can bring in references to the effect which the increased price might have on agriculture among other industries, he is not entitled to go into all these details about the difference between the wages of the agricultural workers and those of the mine workers.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I am simply trying to point out the difference between the agricultural industry and the coal industry in this respect.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to go into the details of the situation as it affects a particular industry to the extent to which the hon. Gentleman is doing so. Other hon. Members are interested in engineering and other industries; they might wish to use the same arguments about each of those industries, and we would thus become involved in a very extensive discussion. It is essential that the hon. Gentleman should keep to the particular provision in the Clause which he himself is moving to omit.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, during the Second Reading Debate, made reference to the difference between the agricultural industry and the coal industry, and it was that subject which I wished to develop, but I bow to your Killing, Mr. Young, and will not deal further with that matter. I submit that this is an injustice to agriculture. Agriculture has to pay its own fixed wage, and under this proposal the agriculturist will also be compelled, through the increased cost of coal, to help in paying increased wages to the coal miner, although the miner is receiving higher wages than the agriculturist can give to his own men. I submit that this part of the Bill is inequitable, unjust, pernicious and vicious, and it is for those reasons that I ask hon. Members on the Liberal benches to support me in the Lobby, and to remove this most pernicious provision from this deplorable "Dear Coal Bill."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down described himself an an agricultural worm. What justification there is for that description I do not know, but one
could make neither head nor tail of his remarks, and he certainly wriggled about a good deal in spite of the very kindly efforts made by you, Mr. Young, to keep him to his objective. I have only risen to state in a very few words that, in so far as the party with which I am associated here is concerned, we do not propose in the course of the Committee proceedings, which I believe are coming to an end to-day, to take any further part in moving or supporting Amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The reason has already been given in the Press. I cannot allude here to the Naval Conference—[Laughter.] I do not know why a reference to the Naval Conference should provoke laughter from hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. As a matter of fact, I heard from one of the leaders of those hon. and merry Gentlement—at least I think he is a leader, I refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—a speech, on Monday, in which he said he refrained from making certain suggestions and criticisms of a very vital character, because he was afraid of affecting the destinies of the Naval Conference, and can anyone doubt that action taken by us to-day of a hostile character would very much more prejudicially affect the fate of the Naval Conference than a speech delivered from those benches?
The reason is that, as I understand it, the fate of the Conference is hanging in the balance. It is a matter of life and death, and there is no doubt at all that any action on our part which would weaken the Government at this particular moment might have a very damaging effect upon the fate of the Conference. [Interruption.] Well, we are all acting upon our own responsibility. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway can act upon theirs. We are acting upon ours. We are responsible to our constituencies, and we are quite prepared to face our constituents when it is necessary, and we will take no orders from hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. We have not been returned here to consider what is best for their political advantage, and we do not propose to do so. We shall consider what is best in the interests of the party which we are here to represent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and, naturally, we would not belong to this
party, if we did not consider that what is best in its interests, is also best in the interests of the country. [Interruption.] Of course we take that view, and so do hon. Members above the Gangway. Do not let us have any misunderstanding about it. Therefore, we have come deliberately to the conclusion which I have stated. When the Report stage is reached we shall consider what Amendments it will be necessary for us to put down in order to improve the Bill, or minimise its evils.
There were two or three points made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) which showed how thoroughly he misapprehends the attitude which we have taken up. [Interruption.] I think it would be as well if hon. Members above, the Gangway allowed us to present our own case, because, on the whole, we are fairly competent to do so. The attitude which I have taken up has always been this. First, I have always thought that the effort to limit output was the most pernicious part of the Bill. I have never concealed from the Committee, and certainly not from my party, my view that if you were going to curtail the hours of labour, you incurred a certain responsibility for facing the cost which would ensue from that course. I think I said so in the House of Commons, and I certainly said it to my hon. Friends upstairs. I objected to the quota because I thought it would increase the cost, but I am not going back upon that point. We have already put our case and we have gone to the Division Lobby upon it. But I have never doubted that, in order to meet the increased cost which would be cast upon industry as a result of the curtailment of the hours of labour, it might be necessary to have some arrangement, under proper safeguards, for the purpose of preventing any cutthroat competition in the trade. I have never concealed that from my hon. Friends and I have already told the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the negotiations which I have had with him, that that was my view.
The hon. Member for Leominster quoted certain objections as having been made by me. The first was that the Government in meeting this inevitable cost, preferred putting up the price to reorganising the industry. That objection
they have removed in my judgment by bringing in very elaborate provisions for the reorganisation of the industry. The second objection which the hon. Member quoted me as making, on the Second Reading, was to an owners' council fixing prices without any protection to the consumer. Since then the right hon. Gentleman has introduced provisions to meet that particular case. The third objection—that is with regard to the export levy—the hon. Member himself admits has already gone. That it has gone is not due to the action of the right hon. Gentleman, but to the action of this Committee. So those three things have gone. The hon. Member then appealed to us to support his Amendment, but in vain is the net spread in the presence of old birds—especially when the net is so full of holes.
Those three points have been met, but I am not going to pretend that the right hon. Gentleman has met the whole of the objections that we have to this Bill—the whole of the objections entertained quite sincerely by us to these particular provisions. I am not going to say that even the action of this Committee on last Thursday, although it made a very vital change, or even the cumulative effect of both the action of the Committee and the action of the right hon. Gentleman has been to meet the whole of our objections. But I do say now, and I say it without hesitation, and after consideration and consultation with my hon. Friends, that, having regard to the present position of very important affairs, we do not feel that we ought to undertake the responsibility of defeating the Government or even putting them in a humiliating position while the Conference is hanging between life and death.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Had we not received a premonitory warning in the Press, I think the whole of the Committee except perhaps those concerned in recent conferences would have been rather surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The Naval Conference has been sitting for many months, and for nearly as many months an Amendment has been on the Order Paper which was put down originally by Members of the Liberal party. The names of Members of the Liberal party remained attached to that Amendment through all the most delicate periods in
which the Naval Conference has been sitting. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not want us to represent his opinion of this Bill, and that he and his friends are very well able to express those opinions themselves. I quite agree, and I have been fortified in my objection to this particular provision in the Bill not least by the tremendous attacks delivered on this very provision by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). We all remember the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading. He hit hard but he never hit harder than when he was attacking this particular provision. What did he say? He said:
The prices which are to be fixed, who are going to fix them? [HON. MEMBERS: The owners!] Hon. Members opposite are learning their lesson very swiftly. I hope that they will pass it on to their constituencies.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is going to pass on the new edition of his speech to his constituents. Then he went on:
Price is not even mentioned. Why? I do not say that price cannot be referred to a Committee of investigation, but there is nothing in the Bill to say so. When you come to fixing the price at which you sell, and which is fixed by the owner, you are not ashamed to put in the word 'price'—arbitration—but when you come to protect the consumer you must not mention the word 'price'. Why? It would upset the owner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1929; col. 1684, Vol. 233.]
That is a pretty strong statement, but if there be a stronger, it is one made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, who said:
The effect of this Bill must be a considerable rise in the price of coal. That is, indeed, as we all know, its very purpose, and I do not envy the President of the Board of Trade in his conversations with other industries—the much depressed cotton industry, for example—when he has to persuade them to acquiesce in this deliberate increase of prices; also the iron and steel industry, and perhaps the gas industry, which, in industrial centres, provides from 25 to 50 per cent. of its product for industry. I do not envy the Minister of Agriculture when he meets the farmers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1929; col. 1308, Vol. 233.]
He went on to say that he did not envy Members of Parliament who are trying to do their duty to the poor, when they
visit their constituencies. Then he talks about the protection of the consumer. And he said: "In this case the time is now." This is the only time when this question can be raised, but we must not protect the interests of the consumer to-day. Why? Because it will upset the Naval Conference. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman think of that before. The Conference was sitting when he led as many of his family as he could persuade to follow him into the Lobby against the quota, and all the difficulties which unfortunately face this Conference, and about which there was no mystery, faced it when the quota decision was taken 10 days ago. When the right hon. Gentleman's party voted with more success on the levy a week ago, and the Government was defeated, there was no question of the Conference or the attitude towards the Conference dividing hon. Members of the Liberal party.

Mr. MOSES: The right hon. Gentleman was not here. How could he lead them into the Lobby when he was not here?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: They are a united party.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Just as united as you are.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what is the difference between our two unions. We are united in supporting a policy in which we believe. [Interruption.] I am going to make my speech. The right hon. Gentleman's party is only united in running away from a policy to which hitherto they have been attached.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then that means that the whole of the party above the Gangway are in favour of food taxes.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Again, I will quote the right hon. Gentleman. We are quite capable of stating our own case, and we have every intention of doing it to our constituents and to his. What a pity that the President of the Board of Trade did not know that all was going to turn on the Naval Conference. He need never have had his difficult and tortuous negotiations. All he need have done was to go to the right hon. Gentleman and appeal to his sense of patriotism and say, "The Naval Conference is
sitting, of course you will foot the Bill." The right hon. Gentleman would have agreed, and the President of the Board of Trade would not have had to have his negotiations, he would not have had to make that indelicate appeal on the quota Clause to ask the Liberal party to keep their bargain. If he had only known that the Conference was the key to the Liberal conscience, he would simply have had to murmur the magic word "Conference," and the Liberal opposition would have been withdrawn. Nobody ever thought of it until a meeting took place a day or two ago. An even longer meeting of the Liberal party, while the Conference was still sitting, and while it was in difficulties—

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) simply gave reasons why they would not vote against the Government at a certain stage of this Bill. That does not open the whole of this Debate to the discussion of those reasons. We are in Committee and are confined to the Amendment now moved.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Come to the merits of the Clause.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am coming to the merits of the Clause, but I think the right hon. Gentleman devoted the major part of his speech to a justification of the reasons which prevented him supporting—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As a matter of fact, I devoted only three or four sentences to it, and for the rest I dealt with the three points that were raised by the hon. Member behind me.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is perfectly plain to the Committee what is the real reason why we are not apparently to receive the right hon. Gentleman's support to-day. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman's reasons further, except to say that it was much more a question of saving the unity of a party than any regard for a particular Conference at this particular moment, and what would appear to have been added is a new amalgamation provision to another party.
I will now come to the merits, or rather the demerits of this provision, which the right hon. Gentleman himself has stigmatised as thoroughly unsound, and
which, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of every Member of this side of the House, is about the worst part of this Bill. What is more, now that the Committee have passed the quota provision, the whole question of price becomes immeasurably more important. Let the Committee observe the position in which we stand. The quota has been passed; there is a power to limit production, and the only safeguard which can remain to the consumer, domestic or industrial, is some protection in the matter of price. An unlimited power to fix price by the coalowners, as is proposed in this provision, is really a more serious provision than a provision to fix a quota of production. When you come to fix a quota of production, you must obviously fix that quota by the known supply and demand, and by the known amount of stocks. No coalowners' association would dare to limit production so as to curtail supplies to a lower figure than the demand which was in sight, and indeed it must be the object of the coal-owners to produce as large an amount as they can. There certainly will be a considerable impetus to get the quota reasonably high, and for that reason I think that the provisions of the quota are really much less objectionable than this unlimited control of sale.
I am, opposed to them both. I am opposed to the quota for the reasons which I gave when we were debating them; but when we come to these restrictions of price, none of the obvious safeguards that exist under the quota can apply, and this provision as regards price is bad from both the consumers' and producers' point of view. Let me take the consumer first. Here you are setting up a statutory price ring by which every single producer is to be bound for every single ounce of coal which he produces. On what basis is the price to be fixed? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept an Amendment. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper asking that in fixing prices, the price fixing rings; must have regard to certain conditions, such as average profits and reasonable economies that might be expected. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether at a later stage, if he succeeds in carrying this provision, he will accept any limitations upon it, and whether he will accept any
directions to the price rings as to how they are to fix their prices? At present no directions exist, and they can fix whatever prices they like. When you come to fixing prices, there is no simple test that anybody can see is applied as it is applied to production.
When you come to limit production you see what stocks there are and what the demand is, and are able to say at once whether production is being curtailed in an artificial manner, but when you come to prices, especially when all prices are being fixed in the dark by an association of coalowners, with no directions as to how they are to fix them, you cannot possibly apply any simple test of that kind. Moreover, the case of coal is more serious than that of almost any other commodity, because there is no external competition in the home market. Industry and householders alike have no alternative sources of supply open to them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Fuel Oil!"] Well, to a very small extent. [Interruption.] That does not help the case of the domestic consumer.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is in all the new flats in London.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: But the people with whom I am more concerned are the poor people. We are all sent here by a great many more poor voters than rich voters, and it is the poor people who are taking a very great deal more interest in this Bill and in the question of price, because they can find no alternative to this source of supply. Therefore, it is more important in the case of coal than almost any other commodity that there should not be an artificial raising of prices, because in no case can we bring in coal from outside to compete with the coal produced here. There is the more reason for anxiety on the part of both industrial and domestic consumers because the foreigner will be getting coal at the world's price. He will buy in a competitive market, in a market where we shall have to sell in competition with producers abroad, and therefore the foreign buyer is automatically protected in the matter of price. Not so we; and therefore there is every expectation, even though the levy provision is cut out from the Bill, that as foreign export coal must be sold at the world price the only coal of which the price can be raised is coal
for domestic or industrial consumption in this country.
Is it not plain that by far the most serious item in the Bill is that we are putting in a clause not only to limit production but to give the coalowners the right to fix prices at whatever figure they like, without any direction? I have no doubt that the paragraph in which the consumer, whether householder or industrialist, will be most interested is this paragraph (f). The acid test of whether hon. Members are going to do anything to protect consumers will be the test of how they vote on this paragraph. It will be very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to make out a case, seeing that prices are fixed in a price ring which includes every pit, whether run expensively or run cheaply. They will fix prices at the figure which will suit, I was going to say the less efficient pits, but I will say the pits which are the morn expensive to work. Of course that will happen. All the expensive pits will be asking that that should be done, and the other pits will be inclined to give way. They must come to an agreement round the table, and they will say, "We could have fixed a price lower by 1s., and still get 1s. a ton profit, but now we shall get 2s. a ton profit; and so we had better fix the price at this figure, which will give us 2s. and give our neighbours 1s." That was the experience of War-time control. My right hon. Friend had a good deal of experience of that kind of thing in the War.

Whereupon the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come, with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

Poor Law Act, 1930.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Gosport Extension) Act, 1930.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Fylde Water Board) Act, 1930.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bradford Extension) Act, 1930.

Rothesay Tramways and Omnibuses Order Confirmation Act, 1930.

And to the following Measures passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Parsonages Measure, 1930.

Archdeaconry of Surrey Measure, 1930.

Marriage Measure, 1930.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was dealing with the question of the way in which the price was going to be fixed, and I was giving an example of price-fixing where it was the invariable experience that when you come to fix the prices you do not fix them upon what the most efficient producer does, but something nearer to the least efficient producer. That will undoubtedly be true in this case. If that is so by fixing a minimum price, as you are going to do under this extraordinary Clause, you are not only committed, but you are actually directed and ordered to fix a minimum price for every class of coal sold by every owner in the country. If you are going to fix the price at that which suits the least efficient mine, you ire giving a serious discouragement to efficient selling and to the amalgamation of selling organisations, and you are directly stabilising the quota of the more extensive pits at an unnecessarily high price.
There is no doubt at all that the ten dency will be to fix the minimum prices at prices that will suit the most expensive pits. If you do that you give a double advantage to those pits, and you are giving an unnatural and a thoroughly unnecessary sort of subsidy to the least economic pits. Then let me show how hopelessly inelastic is this provision. You have to fix prices for every class of coal, and in no case must the coal be sold lower than the minimum price which has been fixed. A proposal of that kind cannot be carried out without causing
great inconvenience and loss to the-trade. We do not know on what principle those prices are going to be fixed. How are you going to deal with a mine which accepts a contract for 10 tons of coal and a mine which is dealing with a contract for 10,000 tons of coal? Apparently, the minimum price is fixed for a particular class of coal. A man may have a contract to deliver 10 tons or 10,000 tons of the same class of coal. Under this provision, is the man who is selling 10,000 tons of coal to be compelled to sell at the same price as the man who is selling only 10 tons?
Apparently, under this Clause that man is so bound, unless you have a second series of compulsory prices based on the varying amounts sold as well as on the various classes of coal. I do not believe anybody can conduct their business under a number of restrictions of that kind. You must have elasticity which enables you to have varying prices according to the amount that is sold, and the sellers should be able to vary the price by aggregating it over a number of different classes of coal. The President of the Board of Trade knows the coal trade very well, and I am sure he will not dissent from that proposition, because he knows that where a large buyer comes into the market for a very large consignment of coal, the seller generally quotes an "all-in" price, and he may not be able to do that on one class of coal, and it would suit the pits much better that he should be able to deliver a variety of coal rather than the particular class of coal in regard to which the price has been fixed.
Under this Bill the seller will not be able to do that. If a seller, in making his contract for supplying 10,000 tons of coal, wanted to mix two classes of coal, and he had given an "all-in" price, if that price was rather cheaper than the price fixed for the better class of coal, he could not make up part of his cargo out of the other class however convenient it might be, or however advantageous it might be to him in maintaining the good will of his customer, and that possibly a foreign customer. I put it to the President of the Board of Trade, with all the knowledge which he has amassed of the coal trade, does he believe that anyone can work the inelastic provision which he has put forward? I say that such a proposal is
hopelessly unfair to the consumer, and I do not believe you can put in any amendment to this proposal which will protect the consumer.
I know the right hon. Gentleman thinks that all the machinery he has inserted in the Bill will give effective protection, but you can only have one effective protection for the consumer, and that is to give people freedom to charge a lower price if they find that it is to their business interest. I think these people should be encouraged to compete with each other, limited though they are by the quota. But after forcing the quota upon them, do for heaven's sake let the keen selling pit give the consumer the benefit of its better organisation. You cannot protect the consumer if once you pass this provision, because you will find it unworkable. Not only will you penalise the consumer, but, at the same time, you will be penalising the efficient pits which, according to the President of the Board of Trade, you are desirous of helping under this scheme. This is the acid test, and if you leave this Clause in, you leave the consumer unprotected.

6.0 p.m.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): On my return from Geneva, which is associated with the cause of world peace, I find that a calm has settled down on the face of the Coal Mines Bill, and I will endeavour to act in keeping with that spirit in a necessarily brief speech on each of these Amendments. This Clause of the Bill provides for the fixing of minimum prices under the district schemes, with, in the second part of the Clause, a safeguard that these minimum prices will not be undermined by rebates or private arrangements or other devices, which could of course in practice make a considerable inroad into any minimum price regulation. The large question before the Committee, having regard to the stage of the Bill which, we have now reached, is whether any kind of minimum price provision is necessary at all. In the earlier stages of these Debates I remember the argument that, if there was a proper adjustment of standard tonnage and an appropriate quota, and if that applied to all the pits—as it would apply under this scheme—in any district, the question of price regulation might be left to take care of itself. Up to a point there
is a good deal of support for an argument of that kind, but the argument is very far from being complete. If we take the case of the Westphalian Syndicate, it is true that that syndicate sells through an adjacent body, and by that device it gets price regulation, but that did not relieve the syndicate of the task of regulating output, that is to say, output or quota was bound up with minimum price. Similarly, in the case of South Wales, to take an illustration from this country, I believe that there they began with some form of simple price regulation, but they had to pass to a quota; and to take a case in the reverse direction, in the Five Counties Scheme, which was founded upon the regulation of output in terms of quota, there seems to be no doubt at all that there was a certain weakness in that scheme, owing to the fact that it has not been possible to maintain a complete minimum price control, because of those owners which remained outside the scheme. I suggest to the Committee that, even if the standard tonnage and the quota are complete, there is still a case for minimum price. It is beyond dispute, and this is really the essence of the Government's defence of this Clause, that, even where we had a complete scheme applicable to any district, with all the owners in that district included, and with the standard tonnage and quota complete, the presence of even one or two people who practised weak selling would make a very serious inroad into the success of the plan. I put that forward as a general consideration in defence of this Clause.
Moreover, there are certain facts at the moment which I think the Committee would do well to bear in mind. I am advised that, because of the weakness in foreign selling in the Durham area, there has been a further inroad upon the position of the coal industry in that district, more particularly vis-a-vis Belgium and Germany, whereas, on the other hand, where there has been a more complete regulation, as in South Wales, it has been possible to maintain the price at a somewhat better level, and thus contribute to the stability of the industry. Therefore, in view of the broad features to which I have just referred, and of the concrete
illustrations of what is going on every day under existing conditions, I am satisfied that it is the duty of the Government to retain this Clause in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has suggested that this is a problem which must have adverse reactions on the home demand. In other words, he seemed to argue that it is the home demand which is going to be penalised and to carry a great part of the contribution, while other sections of the demand will get correspondingly easier conditions. I must not go back to the decision taken by the Committee in regard to the export levy a few days ago, but I would say, on this question of minimum prices, and, indeed, all the other features in the Bill, that the condition of this industry is from many points of view hopeless unless the export trade can be substantially recovered. I do not take the view that there is going to be any generally adverse effect on the home demand. That there will be a higher price for certain classes of home demand is beyond dispute, but that is not to suggest that there is going to be an extravagant price, or anything other than what I have constantly described as an economic price within this country—that is to say, the prevention of the sale of coal at a loss. If we cannot bring that about by this scheme, it is idle to proceed with this Bill at all.
There are far more safeguards than my right hon. Friend suggests. A great deal of the argument which has been led against this Bill has proceeded on the assumption that owners and the industry generally are going to force up prices to such a point as to make conditions almost impossible for the consumer. What would be the inevitable effect of any tendency of that kind? There would be an overwhelming and an irresistible demand for the repeal of this legislation. There would be a widespread encouragement of the use of all alternative forms of fuel—fuel oil and the rest; and it has been pointed out to us again and again what a large part of the Mercantile Marine has been adapted for the use of fuel oil, and how many alternative arrangements to coal have been made. All of these forces would be stimulated, and, therefore, in my judgment, the owners and the industry would be cutting their own throats
if they took any step of that kind. Under this scheme, however, we provide for committees of investigation, not only nationally, but in the districts, and, if there is any abuse under a district scheme, it will be the duty of the committee to investigate it at once. I have previously indicated that, while all these complaints would not be exclusively complaints on price, they would very often be complaints on price, and this machinery comes into immediate operation. Beyond that there is the right to independent arbitration, and, if a remedy is not found, the scheme could be modified in such a way as to provide a remedy, or, in the last resort, the Board of Trade may put in a scheme of its own. AH these safeguards exist, and I suggest that they will be sufficient if there is to be any confidence in this industry at all—and I have never disguised the fact that under this Bill we must trust the industry. That is the only way in which the Bill can operate. We think that the provisions which have been made for safeguarding all legitimate interests are reasonably complete. There is not the slightest doubt that, if we took away this provision from the Bill, it would be open to any class of weak sellers which could survive, and, in my judgment, would survive, even under the complete quota regulation, to do a great deal in an individual district, and it might be in a number of districts, to undermine the whole plan, which is a plan not for maintaining excessive prices, but for safeguarding the sale of coal at an economic level. If that step were taken, it would be just as well to abandon the Bill altogether. For these reasons it would not be wise for the Committee and the Government to accept this Amendment, and it will be our duty to resist it if it is pressed to a Division.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I live in constant admiration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He is, without exception, the most lucid speaker that we have in the House, and from time to time I have paid a tribute to him for the clear way in which he has put forward his argument. I confess, however, that I have never known him so halting as this afternoon. That very logical faculty which enables him to put before the House so clear an account of what he is trying to commend
to it, involves that he himself must be one of the first to see the pitfalls of his own argument, and to me it was quite obvious that he was thoroughly aware of the great chasms that were in front of him as he proceeded. Let us look for a moment at the argument which he has presented. By way of a preliminary, I would point out to the Committee that, when you give, in addition to the right to fix a quota, the privilege also of fixing prices, you are giving a double defence. In the ordinary way, a business man is quite content if he can fix the amount of production according to the amount of the demand, because the old doctrine of economics always applies, that, if the demand exceeds the supply, you will certainly get a good price, because no one will be compelled to work for anything less than an economic price. It is when you get a surplus of supply over demand that you have that competition which induces some people to sell, occasionally, at less than an economic price. But if your supply is only equal to the demand—and that is the condition which is being created by this Bill—there is absolutely no need whatsoever to fix a minimum price, and to do it by an Act of Parliament in such circumstances is something that has never been seen in any country in the world.
What are the excuses which the right hon. Gentleman is presenting? He has given two illustrations. One is that of the Five Counties Scheme, where the weakness of the situation was that there was no compulsion upon all the coal-masters to come into the group, and there was no quota of production for the whole district, so that a variety of people stood out, amongst them some of the Friends of right hon. Gentlemen on the bench below the Gangway, who induced them to see the weakness of this scheme, and who were largely responsible for the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), when he addressed the House upon the iniquity of any price-fixing system at all. You have undoubtedly, in these circumstances, what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade described as weak sellers. Because they were outside the scheme, and nothing could compel them to come in, they took advantage of the fact that there was a certain group which had agreed to keep
up prices, and they came in and undersold them. In such circumstances, of course, you have weak sellers, and you require the fixation of prices. But when the Government compels everyone to come into the group, and fixes the quota for the whole group, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for fixing a price, because weak sellers are entirely done away with. The production of a district is fixed only at the amount of the demand. Who is the fool that will come in and sell at an uneconomic price in such circumstances? Where are you going to find weak sellers when they have been eliminated by a system of quota? What is being done is to put a power into the hands of a group who may undoubtedly abuse it very severely.
My right hon. Friend's other illustration was that of South Wales. There there was a voluntary scheme, but no quota, and no power to fix a quota. It is useless to try to keep up prices if production is unlimited, because, immediately the coal is produced, the people who have produced it must find a market for it. Everyone is competing against everyone else, and an attempt to keep up prices is useless. Neither of these cases is at all an illustration for my right hon. Friend's argument. Let us see what is going to happen. His argument, as I have already pointed out, is as to the danger of the weak seller bringing down his scheme, but everyone who contemplates the situation that is going to arise knows that there are going to be no weak sellers against whom protection is required. The situation is going to be settled by the Government under the scheme. But, says my right hon. Friend, look at the safeguards. How is the position being safeguarded? I agree that you can, by the system which has been adopted in the Bill, if the abuse becomes of a very inordinate character, take measures under the Bill to have that abuse destroyed, although that is going to take a considerable time, and it will be necessary to go through a very large number of processes to accomplish it. But in the meantime people who may be hunting for markets may be very severely caught, and may lose the opportunity of making their contracts while all this long process is being gone through of inquiry in
the districts, by the Consumers' Council, and ultimately by the Board of Trade. How long is that going to take, and what is the consumer going to do in the meantime?
That is not really the kind of circumstance that I fear; I do not think that the coalmasters are going to be such fools as violently to abuse the position. What they will do will be to make their increases such as will make attack upon them very difficult, but still such as to be sufficient to affect the market, and undoubtedly to affect injuriously the position of those who, upon very narrow margins, are attempting to make contracts the basis of the price of which is the coal that they have to purchase. This question of the price of coal runs through the whole gamut of their trades—cotton, wool, linen, steel, and so on. They are working on a very small margin, and an increase in the price of their coal is going to make the difference between getting a contract and not getting it in these other trades. I nave not the slightest doubt that these increases of price which the right hon. Gentleman says are inevitable, and which be intends to produce by his Bill—for it is because he regards coal as a sweated industry that he is taking these measures in its favour—I have not the slightest doubt that this increase in prices must be in the home market, because you cannot increase prices in the export market, where you are in competition with other countries. What is going to happen to all these consumers' prices for the coal which is really the food of their industries, when these prices are increased by a figure which they cannot violently attack upon the economic statistics of the coal trade, and yet which makes all the difference in their contracts?
I venture to say to this Committee that, when you gave to the coalmasters the power to fix the quota, you gave all that was economically necessary, if even that is necessary; but to fortify this extraordinary power is more than I can imagine any Legislature in its senses agreeing to. I am sure that my right hon. Friend only succumbed to it under some extraordinary pressure, but why the Liberal party should have chosen this, of all occasions, to desert from their attitude of opposition is almost impos-
sible to imagine by anyone who recalls the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen on this topic. Was ever a proposal so scornfully torn to tatters as he did with this proposal of fixing prices? It seems unconscionable that he should run away to-day from the attack which he so strongly made in favour of the consumers of this, country. Moreover, the Liberals will not even acknowledge the position. They have to find an excuse if they are not to be branded before the country as people who are in favour of dear coal; and, accordingly, they blame the condition of the Naval Conference for the fugitive retreat which they have been making. It was not the Naval Conference; it was another conference at a luncheon that took place the other day. It is unimaginable that that luncheon was arranged while the danger of this sword of Damocles was held over the head of the Government; there was some arrangement about which we have still to learn before this matter is cleared up, although it takes some of the sting out of the Division Lobbies to-night. We, at least, are here to maintain what we believe to be right in this matter, and not what we believe to be expedient, and I, for my part, cannot conceive that even the Ministers who present this Clause for our acceptance can possibly believe that it ought to be commended to the country.

Captain PEAKE: I want to reinforce my right hon. Friend's arguments by pointing out some of the grave practical difficulties of fixing minimum prices, as we have to do under this Clause for every class of coal. That involves the classification of every class of coal raised in the country. When coal comes out of the mine it passes over the screens. It is sized into six, seven or eight different sizes. Many of those sizes are then sent on to the washery or to the dry cleaner. Coal is sold dry or it is sold washed. Many of those sizes, after they have been washed, are mixed, and in that way you have one colliery producing 15 or 16 and up to 20 different grades of coal. As between colliery and colliery there are vast differences in the grades of coal produced from identical seams. I could give an example of coal raised at two adjacent pits from the same seam. At one colliery the coal has always com-
manded a price of 4s. a ton more than the same coal from the same seam at the adjacent colliery. I do not want to throw too much light upon the secrets of the coal trade, but your classes of coal are not fixed things. They vary according to the state of trade. When trade is good, you can sell your coal very much easier than when trade is bad, and you can sell your washed coal with a higher percentage of dirt and ash in it when trade is good than when trade is bad.
When you have sold washed and graded coal with more ash or dirt in it than it ought to contain, you get a complaint. You send your agent to meet the buyer. You agree, possibly, that the coal was below specification and you are threatened with an action for breach of warranty. You make a reduction in the price to meet that complaint. Under this Bill no owner will be free to make a reduction to meet a complaint of that sort. He would be infringing the Statute and laying himself open to a fine. What has been found about selling coal with fixed prices is that you cannot classify it thoroughly according to scientific, calorific analysis. All that has been done, or ever will be attempted, is to classify your coal according to its destination. That seems to me to be totally unfair. You say to your buyer, "Because you are a public utility company, because you are gas or electricity, you will have to pay a certain price," but the industrial user buying his coal, turning it into electric power or gas, for exactly the same purposes, because he is not a public utility company, will get his coal at a different rate.
Our experience has been in the Five Counties Scheme that output regulation is good for the industry and for the consumer as well. Output regulation has succeeded in doing four things. It gives regularity of work, and regularity is good for every human and inhuman organism. It has concentrated production at the better pits. The pits that have been closed have been preserved as a national asset and not abandoned and thrown away. The day will come when they will be required again. I look forward to a gradual re-expansion of the British coal trade. If you are going to have pits closed and abandoned, pits in many cases partly developed, you are throwing away a great national asset, because no mining engineer is ever going to re-open a col-
liery that has been abandoned for any length of time. The big thing that regulation of output has succeeded in doing is reducing the cost of production. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has explained this afternoon that he attacked the quota because he thought it would increase the cost of production. In the Midlands you have had regulation of output working for over two years. The quarterly summaries published by the Mines Department show clearly what the effect of regulation has been upon the cost of production. There are four great districts where there has been no alteration in wages in the last 2½ years—Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, South Wales and Scotland. If you look at the cost of production in the last quarter before the Five Counties Scheme operated, the March quarter of 1928, and then at the last quarter available to-day, the September quarter of 1929, you will find that the fall in the regulated districts of Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire has been 5d. and 7d. per ton, and the fall in the unregulated districts, South Wales and Scotland, has been, respectively, only 4d. and 2d.
Fixation of prices, on the other hand, to my mind has no saving grace at all. An increase in the all-round price is going to help to keep alive the pits which at present are economic, and some of which are inefficient. The only necessity for fixation of price is to finance the shorter hours that are being introduced under the Bill. We can quite understand and sympathise with the very grave dilemma in which hon. Members below the Gangway have placed themselves in this matter. They refused to support the proposal we put forward for the spreadover of the hours, a proposal which would have made unnecessary any rise in the price of coal. They have, therefore, supported something which makes necessary a rise in the price of coal. Cab drivers have some ugly words for people who hire a taxi and refuse to pay the fare. The other side of the dilemma is this. For many years the consumer has been the best friend of the Liberal party. Many a good proposal advocated by hon. Members on this side of the House has been defeated by the cry of "cost you more." The poor old war horse upon which the Liberal party has ridden to
so many victories is going to be exported for slaughter. It is a very extraordinary thing to me that the Liberal party should have wasted so much of their breath in criticising and attacking the one thing it wants, the quota system, whilst leaving the consumer unprotected in the one dear coal Sub-section in this dear coal Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said on the Second Reading:
The Government have chosen that crude burdensome method, easy but pernicious, of merely putting up prices.
He went on to speak of the consumers of domestic coal,
the most defenceless of all God's creatures against a monopoly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1929; col. 1677, Vol. 233.]
There they are! They have been completely thrown over.
Now I come to what I consider the most vicious and dangerous part of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. He knows the system of wage ascertainment in the industry. If the price of coal at the pit is 14s. a ton, you first of all take off costs other than wages. Those costs are usually about 4s, a ton. That leaves you 10s. to divide between the owners and the men. Under the system obtaining, 85 per cent. of that—8s. 6d.—goes to the miners and is. 6d. to the owners. The pressure to increase the price of coal is not going to come so much from the owners as from the Miners' Federation, because out of every half-crown by which the price is increased, 2s. 2d. is going into the wages of the men and only 4d. into the pockets of the coal-owner. That is what I fear most under the Bill. There is no protection for the consumer other than the coalowner himself. In Germany, where they have compulsory fixation of prices, they have a National Coal Council, consisting of 50 per cent. representatives of the mining industry, men and owners, and 50 per cent. representative of the public and of Government Departments. When the men approach the owners for an increase of wages, and point out that all they have to do to meet the increase is to put up the price, the owners can say, "We will ask the National Coal Council to increase the price." They go to the Council and the increase is rejected. They can then go back to the men and say, "We have done our best to secure this but we have failed." What is going to happen under
this Bill? The owners have no buffer of any sort. They know full well that the public are sick and tired of disputes in the mining industry and they will be tempted to take the easy course of putting up the price of coal. To my mind this is almost the worst proposal in the Bill. It is a real danger to the public. There is a real danger of infinitely dearer coal for every consumer of this valuable commodity.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: My hon. Friend represents a district which sometimes comes into competition with mine, and I cannot accept entirely as gospel what he has said about the merits of regularising coal output. He said that costs in Yorkshire and the other districts have come down more than in Scotland and elsewhere. But I think there is far more room for costs to come down in Yorkshire than in Scotland, Northumberland or the other districts. I want to pass on to what the President of the Board of Trade said because, he suggested that, owing to congestion on the Continent, trade with Durham was going down. It is true that the trade of Durham is not so good as it was. It is true that there is congestion on the Continent, but the real reason is because this Bill was introduced. There are not the number of demands coming from Scandinavia as have been coming in the past. They are waiting on that side until they can get coal which has been made artificially cheaper to them and dearer to us. That is the reason that trade in Durham and some of these counties is slacking off at the present moment. This part of the Bill is one of the reasons why the exporting districts are almost unanimously against the Bill. Ninety per cent. of our export trade is against the Bill and against this particular part of the Bill, because a minimum price cannot do any good to the export trade and is bound to do harm. In my opinion, it will do harm to miners' wages as well.
I want to call the attention of the Committee to what really happens when you are selling coal. A colliery perhaps at one period of the year secures contracts to enable it to carry on for a considerable time, and then comes a period when additional contracts cannot be obtained. There is an interval. It goes into the market until it can get
another long contract and becomes a weak seller and cuts the price to a certain extent. Unless it does so the pit may grow idle and go on short time for a certain period and the men lose work. If a pit can quote a lower price for a short period and lose a certain amount per ton, that system of competition, although it creates a weak seller at the moment, is a great safeguard to the wages of the men.
I will give another illustration concerning what happens when a contract has been obtained to send coal across the North Sea to Scandinavia. The coal has been obtained at the colliery, but there is a delay in regard to the shipping, and the colliery has either to sell that coal or else it has to stop work. We cannot store coal in this country as they do in Westphalia. Our coal is not of the same kind. Our gas coal, for instance, when once it is on the top, deteriorates. The only way of storing coal is by putting it into coal wagons, and that becomes an expensive job after a short time. Therefore, when an accident of this kind occurs and the ship is delayed, the coal master is bound to go into the market and accept an order for coal at a very low price so as to enable him to keep his colliery running. This Bill fixes prices so near the economic market price that you will not be able to cut prices in that way, and the pits will have to go short of orders and the men will have to work short time.
For these reasons, our export trade is entirely against this proposal of fixing prices. They believe that, with the intricacies and difficulties of the export trade and the necessity for taking quick action, the proposal is inevitably going to do far more harm than good. My hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) made reference to the difficulty of classifying coal and fixing prices for every single kind of coal. He mentioned the varieties and sizes of coal at one colliery alone. You have not only to consider the various grades of coal, but also the various qualities of coal. You have gas coal, steam coal and coking coal; all these are divided into various classes, and, when you start to subdivide them into sizes, you are going to get such a long list of mixed prices that the whole thing will become impracticable. A fixed price of this kind is not necessarily going to help coal
masters when they start to sell coal against competitors abroad, seeing that our lowest price is fixed too low. We know exactly what the price is for each particular quality of our export coal. Our competitors will be sure to undercut us and go a little lower and so obtain orders in consequence. For these reasons, the exporting districts are very much against this Bill.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) has said, this Subsection is the acid test of the real intention of the Measure. In fact, we have reached the most important obstacle in the grand nationalisation of coal race in which the President of the Board of Trade has been engaged for some time. He has flown some of his fences in the beet possible style. He has pecked here and there but recovered, he has gone a "purler" over Becher's Brook and been able to remount with the assistance of his trainer the Prime Minister, and now as he is coming to the Canal turn the spectators are holding each other's breath to see what is going to happen, all except the late occupants of the Liberal Benches who are so breathless over their audacity in having voted against the President of the Board of Trade on a previous Amendment that they have no breath left to hold. If we did not see this in black and white before our eyes, it would be incredible that a Socialist Government should bring forward a Bill containing a provision of this sort. One could have understood it if the President had presented to us a scheme which, under some of these Clauses was going to break up rings and trusts in the interests of the consumers and set up a maximum price above which it was not to be permissible to sell one of the necessities of life to the people of this country. Here we are facing this Gilbertian state of affairs, that, instead of breaking up trusts and combines and rings, we are actually incorporating them in the Bill, and the President of the Board of Trade and his myrmidons are going out into the districts to the owners to compel them to come in and furnish the wedding of the State and the coal industry.
Instead of protecting the consumers of the country with regard to the fixing of
prices above which they must not sell, the Government are fixing in this Clause which we seek to delete, a price below which they must not go. I cannot understand why a Government which claims to have business-like methods, and claims, above all, to represent the interests of the consumers and the workers of the country, should bring forward a suggestion of this kind. When history is written, it will be found that this was not a question of applying the experiences of the past to a solution of the problems of the present, but what I can only call the optimistic ruminations of exuberant youth who thought that industrial problems only began when they were old enough to take an interest in public life. They suggest that the solution of the problem in the coal industry is to fix minimum prices below which no one is to be allowed to obtain coal, and they give an indication that there are only, apparently, two prices which need consideration.
It is quite true that by regulations with regard to hours, wages, and conditions of safety, and with regard to welfare, pithead baths and so forth, you can by statute, frequently regulate your pithead cost. That is one price which you can fix. You can, as has been tried in this Clause, fix prices at which yon will sell, but there is a third price which the President of the Board of Trade seems to have lost sight of, and that is the price which the purchaser in the world market is willing to pay. That is the serious thing which is contained here. We poor consumers in this country have to carry the coal baby which is being handed to us under this Sub-section; but, when it comes to a question of what is the real primary market of our coal industry—the export market—it is no use fixing minimum prices if the foreign purchaser is not going to pay the price which is fixed. You are immediately faced with a situation where you have a Socialist President of the Board of Trade who is actually going to bring into being the old problem of carrying coal to Newcastle because the minimum price of home-produced coal is such that the foreigner can undercut him and can import coal from abroad at a much cheaper rate. This is the kind of possibility in fixing a minimum price.
Only the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down here and in a spirit of childish petulance charged a section of the community with hatching a conspiracy against him to kill commerce. I wonder what the Lord Privy Seal had to say about that matter. He has not lost opportunities, both inside this House and outside, of paying tribute to the way in which the bankers and other industrial leaders have helped him in the stupendous task which he is trying to carry out. We might talk about a conspiracy to destroy confidence by bringing forward a Clause like this. If there are any conspirators at work in this matter, they are sitting on the front bench opposite. These are the people who are hatching this gunpowder plot. The arch conspirators, the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are like a pair of Guy Fawkes who come and threaten us with this Sub-section.

Mr. DUNCAN: On a point of Order. Is the speech to which we have listened anywhere within 1,000 miles of the Amendment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I am following the hon. and gallant Member very closely, and, when he is out of order, I shall rule him out of order.

Major DAVIES: I am sure you are following me as closely as I am following the Rules of Order. It is unfortunate that the custom has died out of making classical quotations from Latin and Greek writers in this House. That is not because hon. Members are not familiar with the great writers of Latin and Greek, but because that familiarity is regarded with a kind of contempt. I will, however, venture a quotation which has not the same familiarity. It is a Chinese proverb. I would not dare to quote it in the original, though I might if I were unduly pressed. The proverb is:
Don't tie your shoelaces in your neighs hour's cucumber field, and don't scratch your head under your neighbour's apple tree.
Or, as St. Paul would say, "Avoid every appearance of evil." The right hon. Gentleman has not only failed to avoid the appearance of evil, but he has failed to avoid evil itself in this extremely evil Sub-section. I ask him to consider this shrewd Chinese proverb and to apply it
to this Measure. [Interruption.] I often feel that when a Scotsman quotes Burns to me, I want him to translate it into English.

Mr. J. JONES: Translate it into Chinese.

Major DAVIES: I am certain that I should be out of order. This is the most dangerous provision in the Bill. It is the coping-stone of all the menaces in it against the welfare of the people of this country, and it is astonishing that hon. Members below the Gangway, realising that fact, have failed to put their real convictions into operation. They are postponing action. What is in store for the President of the Board of Trade at a later stage I do not know, but if the gods are good to him and he gets this Measure on the Statute Book it will be the writing on the wall for the Labour party; they will be weighed in the balances and found wanting in their responsibility to the people who sent them here and in common honesty to the electors who were so foolish as to believe what they said.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have tried to discover the point the hon. and gallant Member is making and I think he is getting far beyond the Amendment.

Major DAVIES: I am very sorry. My anxiety in denouncing this vicious provision has led me to denounce the vicious party who have fathered it. I trust that we are going in our full strength into the Lobby against this proposal and show that we realise its implications and do not seek to be in any way identified with a Bill which has for one of its provisions such a thoroughly dangerous and vicious proposal as this.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I want to put the point of view, in respect of this provision, of the class of consumer I have the honour to represent—the fishermen. I am surprised that hon. Members of the Liberal party who have professed from time to time to be interested in the welfare of fishermen have not put in a word of protest against this particular proposal. What will be the position of the trawling industry if this is accepted? Their experience under the Five Counties Scheme is that they have had to pay more for their coal, and that those who participate in that scheme, the coalowners,
have been able to give a rebate of 3s. per ton on export coal which places foreign trawlers in a far better position than our own fishermen. Under that scheme they have the option of buying coal in an alternative market, in Blythe or in Scotland, but once this Bill is on the Statute Book they will have no alternative market. The, reason why the fishermen hear the result of such a proposal is this:
I have had some calculations made as to what an increase of 1s. per ton would mean on the earnings of the men on fishing boats. To a vessel which sails into the Icelandish waters to fish it will make a difference of £150 in the earnings for the year. The skipper will be £14 4s. 9d. out of pocket if there is a 1s. increase per ton on coal, the mate £10 7s. 2d., with a proportionate sum for each member of the crew. If you take the Scottish fishing boats into account, where the system of sharing is somewhat different, a 1s. increase in the price of coal will make a tremendous difference and if it happens, as it may, that there is a larger increase, it will be almost impossible to make the industry pay. We have been told by hon. Members who represent mining districts that the sole object of the Bill and this provision is to increase the price of coal; and we are bound to view it from the consumers' point of view. I protest on behalf of the fishermen of this country and I hope that some Liberal Members, as a sort of death-bed repentance will remember the promises they have made to their fishermen constituents and go with us into the Lobby against this proposal.

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Mr. J. JONES: I want to say a few words from an altogether different point of view. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has just spoken from the standpoint of the fishermen. They are supposed to be arrayed against the miners—a case of divide and govern. Get the fishermen up against the miners—

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Not a bit of it.

Mr. JONES: That is the argument.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in charging me with making a statement
which I have not made, and with charging the fishermen I represent with something that they do not intend to do at all? All they are asking for is a fair and square deal.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. That is a question of different points of view.

Mr. JONES: I desire to speak from the consumers point of view. The workers in the East End of London want to know why they have to pay 2s. 7d. per cwt. for their coal. They want to know how much the miners get out of that 2s. 7d. [Interruption.] So far as we are concerned we have no objection to the miners getting bettor conditions and we are willing to back them all the way through. But the workers in the East End of London cannot understand why there is all this talk about the price of coal by hon. Members opposite who have only just become our pals. The consumer is, they say, their only interest. Who are the consumers? The producers form 80 per cent. of the population, and they are consumers as well as producers. Why cannot we study the consumer and producer together. You cannot separate the producer and the consumer. People, it is said, must have cheap coal. Later on it will be cheap beer, in the interests of the consumers. Really it is not in the interests of the people who use the coal or drink the beer but in the interests of the people who make a profit out of both. Our export trade is to be this and that. The other day I listened to the Debate on a Vote of Censure when we were told that in order to get trade we should have to have protection—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to raise that Debate on this occasion.

Mr. JONES: It is only as an illustration; it is not an argument. I was trying to point out that the argument then was that we should build up a barrier against foreign countries in our own markets. Now we are arguing that we must not do the same as foreigners. They are giving subsidies to their coal trade and organising their internal markets, while underselling us in the other markets. Yet, when we say that something similar must be done we are told that we must do nothing of the kind. You cannot have it both ways. You
cannot have Free Trade and Protection. This Bill does not go the way we in the East End of London should like it to go by a long way. I should like to see the day when the land, the mines, and the minerals of the country are national property. This Bill is a compromise, and should be accepted as such. We shall not go whole heartedly into the Lobby in support of it, only half heartedly, and with the hope that some

day we shall have a Labour Government in power not in office who will be able to carry out the policy of national ownership of all the things that are necessary for the people of this country.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 229.

Division No. 228.]
AYES.
[6.58 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Logan, David Gilbert


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Freeman, Peter
Longbottom, A. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Longden, F.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gibbins, Joseph
Lowth, Thomas


Alpass, J. H.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lunn, William


Ammon, Charles George
Gill, T. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Angell, Norman
Gillett, George M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Arnott, John
Gossling, A. G.
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gould, F.
McElwee, A.


Ayles, Walter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, V. L.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mackinder, W.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McKinlay, A.


Barnes, Alfred John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barr, James
Groves, Thomas E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mansfield, W.


Bellamy, Albert
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth. C.)
Marcus, M.


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Markham, S. F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hardie, George D.
Marley, J.


Benson, G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Marshall, Fred


Bantham, Dr. Ethel
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mathers, George


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Haycock, A. W.
Matters, L. W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hayday, Arthur
Maxton, James


Bowen, J. W.
Hayes, John Henry
Melville, Sir James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Messer, Fred


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Middleton, G.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mills, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Milner, J.


Bromley, J.
Harriotts, J.
Montague, Frederick


Brooke, W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Brown, C W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Money, Ralph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hollins, A.
Mort, D. L.


Buchanan, G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Moses, J. J. H.


Burgess, F. G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mosloy, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Buxton, C R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Isaacs, George
Muff, G.


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Cameron, A. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Murnin, Hugh


Cape, Thomas
Johnston, Thomas
Naylor, T. E.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Charieton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Chater, Daniel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Church, Major A. G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Palin, John Henry


Clarke, J. S.
Keily, W. T.
Paling, Wilfrid


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Thomas
Palmer, E. T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kinley, J.
Perry, S. F.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Knight, Holford
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Compton, Joseph
Lang, Gordon
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Daggar, George
Lathan, G.
Pole, Major D. G.


Dallas, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Potts, John S.


Dalton, Hugh
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Price, M. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Quibell, D. J. K.


Day, Harry
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawson, John James
Raynes, W. R.


Dickson, T.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Richards, R.


Dukes, C.
Leach, W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Frank (Derby. N. E.)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edge, Sir William
Lees, J.
Ritson, J.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lindley, Fred W.
Romeril, H. G.


Egan, W. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Rowson, Guy
Snell, Harry
Wallhead, Richard C.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watkins, F. C.


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Sorensen, R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Sanders, W. S.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Sandham, E.
Stephen, Campbell
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Sawyer, G. F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wellock, Wilfred


Scrymgeour, E.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Scurr, John
Strauss, G. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Sexton, James
Sullivan, J.
West, F. R.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Sherwood, G. H.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shield, George William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shillaker, J. F.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shinwell, E.
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Simmons, C. J.
Toole, Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sinkinton, George
Tout, W. J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Sitch, Charles H.
Townend, A. E.
Wise, E. F.


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wright, W. (Ruthergten)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Turner, B.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Vaughan, D. J.



Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Walkden, A. G.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Smith, Toms (Pontefract)
Walker, J.



Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wallace, H. W.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colville, Major D. J.
Haslam, Henry C.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Atkinson, C.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hurst, Sir Gerald S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Iveagh, Countess of


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Beaumont, M. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Dixey, A. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Berry, Sir George
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lane, Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Edmondson, Major A J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Boothby, R. J. G.
England, Colonel A.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Liewellin, Major J. J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Boyce, H. L.
Ferguson, Sir John
Lymington, Viscount


Bracken, B.
Fermoy, Lord
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Macquisten, F. A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Ford, Sir P. J.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Buchan, John
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Meller, R. J.


Butler, R. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grace, John
Mond, Hon. Henry


Carver, Major W. H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland. N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Christie, J. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'l'd)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hammersley, S. S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Neill, Sir H.


Colfox Major William Philip
Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William




Peake, Capt. Osbert
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Penny, Sir George
Savery, S. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Skelton, A N.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Preston, Sir Walter Ruebon.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Purbrick, R.
Smithers, Waldron
Wells, Sydney R.


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerset, Thomas
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Renter, John R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Withers, Sir John James


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Womersley, W. J.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ross, Major Ronald D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, Sir F.



Salmon, Major I.
Tinne, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Captain Wallace and the Marquess of Titchfield.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Train, J.



Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that in the determination of such price the following matters shall be taken into consideration, namely:—

(a) the price or prices usually paid during the previous 12 months for coal of the class concerning which the price is to be determined;
(b) the rate of profit, if any, per ton made on the average of each coal mine in the district during the previous 12 months;
(c) the economies in the cost of production and in the methods of distribution and sale that might reasonably be expected to he effected with regard to any class of coal by organisations for the production and sale thereof."
We have now decided that the coal-owners are to have the power not merely to have a quota, but to fix the price without any direction being given so far as to the terms on which that price has to be fixed. I submit to the Committee that, having passed this provision giving a price-fixing right to coalowners, it is absolutely essential that we should put in some directions as to the conditions to which they are to have regard in fixing the price. Otherwise, it is a plain invitation to fix the price as high as they think they can get. Now that you have put them into a compulsory price ring from which they cannot escape except under penalties and are forcing them to fix prices, the least the President of the Board of Trade can do is to give some directions as to how this price ring is to operate. I submit that the reasonable provision to put in is that the district board, in fixing prices, should have regard, firstly, to the prices which have
been paid during recent months, secondly, to the average profits which have been made in the district—on that, there is the periodical ascertainment—and, thirdly, to the economies in the cost of production or the methods of distribution which might reasonably be expected from an efficient conduct of this business. We are asking very little in asking for those three things. The first two are obvious. As to the third, we are told that the whole object of this Bill is to make the industry more efficient—though I do not believe it will have that effect. If that is the object, then let us put in, as a direction to the people who are fixing the prices, that they must take into consideration the economies that can be looked for if the industry is reorganised under this Bill.
Those considerations ought to be there when the district board fixes prices and also when there is an appeal. If you put in no provision at all and people complain of the price, they have a right to go to arbitration or to the district committee which the President of the Board of Trade sets up in the next Clause. Unless you put in a general rule by which the tribunal is to be bound in fixing prices, the considerations to which they are to have regard, how will your appeal tribunal or your arbitral tribunal decide whether the price is reasonable or unreasonable? There is no test of reasonableness. The coalowner will say, "Under the Statute I am told to fix a price; I fixed a price to give myself a reasonable return and to pay wages. There is nothing else in the Bill. How can you convict me of fixing an unreason-
able price when there is no test?" What are the conditions which the President of the Board of Trade thinks the district board will be bound to have regard to in fixing the prices and what are the conditions which the court of appeal will have regard to? If he does not put in those provisions or some similar provisions, the district board will be free to do as they like and the appeal will be completely useless.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am afraid it will be impossible for the Government to agree to the insertion of these words. I will try, as briefly as possible, to give the reasons for that attitude. My right hon. Friend asks me how these prices will be fixed in the different districts and what conditions will be taken into account. The Bill at the present time provides for the standard tonnage and quota, and now, in the provision which we have passed, for the fixing of minimum prices below which coal will not be sold by the owners within a district scheme. At the present time, the price schedules in these colliery districts are very elaborate affairs. These price schedules will be continued in all their elaboration and all their detail under this scheme, subject, however, to a district regulation that as regards classes of coal there will not be disposal of that coal below these minimum prices. There may be cases, and probably will be cases, in which owners are able to get a better price, and there is nothing to stop that better price being obtained, so long as the minimum price regulation is not infringed.
That will be the ordinary way, and I have not the least doubt that the executives of the owners in the different districts will take into account the kind of demand for the different classes of coal, the prices which have been ruling within recent times, and the importance of keeping the market, both at home and abroad and if possible improving the market. All these elementary conditions in daily business will be before them under the district schemes, as they are before them now for the whole industry so that in that way the minimum prices will be fixed, and there will be power to vary them from time to time, together with the safeguard to which I alluded on the previous Amendment.
I quite appreciate the desire of my right hon. Friend to introduce safeguards, but I suggest that it is altogether impossible to put these words in the Bill with the idea that they will have any practical meaning at all. Let the Committee observe what we are asked to do. First of all, we are invited to take into account the prices which have been ruling during the previous 12 months for the class or classes of coal, but in practice these prices might not be any criterion at all. There might be all kinds of exceptional conditions or difficulties, which would make the enforcement of a direction of this sort—and it is no use putting it in unless it will be a direction—virtually impossible or at any rate very difficult.
In the next place, it is suggested that we should take into account
the rate of profit, if any, per ton made on the average of each coal mine in the district during the previous 12 months.
The suggestion may be that the object is to fix a minimum price in such a way as to safeguard the position of the efficient mine and thereby confer on the efficient undertaking a much larger profit. No doubt, up to a point, there is something in that argument, but this Amendment would not appreciably affect that, because if it is a profit, it can only be an average rate of profit for the previous 12 months, and in this average the inefficient and the efficient, the good and the bad pits, or the profit and loss are all mixed up so that on this point the arrangement does not appear to me to be calculated to achieve any practical result. I have always been satisfied, personally, that with the quota regulations and basic tonnage on a sound footing, and with price regulation, the tendency in this industry, if the industry itself is to survive or to regain its strength, will be inevitably in the direction of getting rid of the weaker pits, and that, of course, is strengthened by the new amalgamation proposal.
In the third place, we are to take into account economies in the cost of production in determining what the minimum price is to be. Although I do not for a moment question the sincerity with which my right hon. Friend or the Opposition advance this Amendment, I am satisfied that they will at once appreciate the great difficulty of making a practical proposition of such a provision. How
could we place any precise figure on the economies which may result over a period? I submit that an Amendment of this kind would not really achieve the object which my right hon. Friend has in view, and that the effective safeguards are those which I described in reply to the previous Amendment, namely, that it must be to the interests of this industry in its present condition to dispose of its coal at the most favourable price, but at an economic price. In any case, such attention will be directed to the price level as will inevitably lead to cases being put before the investigation committee. The industry does not desire that at all, and I suggest that those safeguards are reasonable. I will, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, which, even if it were inserted, could have no practical application.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope my right hon. Friend will press this Amendment. What does the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade amount to? It amounts to this, that he will leave everything to chance, and that he will leave the safeguards to chance, because the appellant will not be able to say that any particular price is wrong. All that he can say is that he disagrees with it. There is no guidance given to those who fix the price to enable the appellant to point out whether or not it is fair. The right hon. Gentleman said that the minimum is fixed, but that he expects that in most districts the owners will be able to get something more. He contemplated that the minimum price would not be the price, but that there would be from some customers a higher price to be exacted. Take, for example, the next Amendment, which will not be called, to the effect that there should not be a differentiation in price between one customer and another. Under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme he contemplates that the owners will be able to fix one price for one type of customer and a totally different price for another type of customer, and he is not going to give the customer who has been picked out for the higher price any chance of making good his appeal by giving directions in the Bill as to how the price is to be fixed. I do not want
to delay the Committee, but I hope we shall divide upon this Amendment.

Major COLVILLE: I want to sound a note of very grave concern, on behalf of those great producing industries of this country which are dependent on coal, because I do not see in this Bill sufficient safeguards for them in the matter of the fixing of prices. I support the Amendment, not because I think it is perfect, but because it adds some safeguard to assist these consumers. These basic industries certainly have some rights under the Bill. They have a costly and slow procedure to go through if aggrieved before they can get justice. There is the national committee of investigation, there are the local committees of investigation, and finally there is the Board of Trade. But contracts do not wait for committees of investigation. In the iron and steel trade we have been through hard times, and our contracts abroad are snapped up quickly. While this slow machinery is being gone through, Australia, South Africa, and other Empire countries and foreign countries are buying and will buy elsewhere, and then what happens? Furnaces and mills go off, and coal pits dependent on them go off too, and then what is the good of a minimum price if a coal pit has to shut down because it cannot get its coal sold?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman very earnestly to consider what he is doing to-night. This Amendment, at any rate, does add some safeguard for these consumers. It may be said that this question of fixing prices is not a new question, because trades other than the coal trade have adopted the method before now, and particularly the iron and steel trades, which have adopted national agreements to fix prices. Yes, they have adopted national agreements, and have done so successfully, but the whole difference between those agreements and what we are asked to do here is that they were entirely voluntary, and the safeguard of the consumers lay in that fact; whereas, for the first time in the history of this or any other country that I know of, we have before us now a proposal to place the whole might of Parliament behind a ring or combine to keep prices up. It seems to me to be paradoxical that such a proposal should come from Members of the Labour party, who
have gone up and down the country talking against rings and combines; and I strongly urge the Government to accept this Amendment.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I expect the President of the Board of Trade is familiar with the details of the first marketing scheme, namely, that of the South Yorkshire owners, and I believe it is the case that in that scheme there were set forth four different classes of consumers according to the order in which they were to be shot at. The first on the list were the gas and electricity, municipal and public utility undertakings; then came the household and domestic users; then locomotive coal, and then coal for industrial purposes. For that very

reason, I should have thought it would have been advisable for the right hon. Gentleman to accept this safeguard, which would turn the attention of the price-fixing committee to the classes of coal and the prices previously ruling in those classes, rather than to the classes of consumers of the coal in question. I suggest that in order to remove apprehensions from the classes set forth in the order of vulnerability, he should accept some sort of safeguard like this, in order that the prices ruling should be the criterion, and not the class of consumer who is going to be charged.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 274.

Division No. 229.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Albery, Irving James
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Dairymple-White. Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Dixey, A. C.
Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Berry, Sir George
England, Colonel A.
Liewellin, Major J. J.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ferguson, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Macquisten, F. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fielden, E. B.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Maitland, A. (Kent. Faversham)


Boyce, H. L.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bracken, B.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Meller, R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Mond, Hon. Henry


Buckingham, Sir H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Butler, R. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Butt, Sir Alfred
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Carver, Major W. H.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Muirhead, A. J.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herb, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
O'Neill, Sir H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Chapman, Sir S.
Hammersley, S. S.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Christie, J. A.
Hanbury, C.
Penny, Sir George


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hartington, Marquess of
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Colfox, Major William Philip
Haslam, Henry C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Colville, Major D. J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Purbrick, R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsbotham, H.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Remer, John R.
Smithers, Waldron
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Somerset, Thomas
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Ross, Major Ronald D.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Hon. J, (Moray and Nairn)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Salmon, Major I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Withers, Sir John James


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Sir F.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Tinne, J. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Savery, S S.
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Train, J.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Turton, Robert Hugh



Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Captain Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Duncan, Charles
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ede, James Chuter
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edmunds, J. E.
Lawrence, Susan


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lawson, John James


Alpass, J. H.
Egan, W. H.
Lawthor, W. (Barnard Castle)


Ammon, Charles George
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Leach, W.


Angell, Norman
Freeman, Peter
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Arnott, John
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lees, J.


Ayles, Walter
Gibbins, Joseph
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Llndley, Fred W.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gill, T. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Barnes, Alfred John
Gillett, George M.
Logan, David Gilbert


Barr, James
Gossling, A. G.
Longbottom, A. W.


Batey, Joseph
Gould, F.
Longden, F.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bellamy, Albert
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lowth, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lunn, William


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Benson, G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
McElwee, A.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McEntee, V. L.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mackinder, W.


Bowen, J. W.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McKinlay, A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hardie, George D.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bromfield, William
Haycock, A. W.
Mansfield, W.


Bromley, J.
Hayday, Arthur
March, S.


Brooke, W.
Hayes, John Henry
Marcus, M.


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Markham, S. F.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Marley, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marshall, Fred


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George


Buchanan, G.
Herriotts, J.
Matters, L. W.


Burgess, F. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Maxton, James


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Melville, Sir James


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Hoffman, P. C.
Messer, Fred


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Hollins, A.
Middleton, G.


Cameron, A. G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Mills, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Horrabin, J. F.
Milner, J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Montague, Frederick


Charieton, H. C.
Isaacs, George
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Chater, Daniel
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morley, Ralph


Church, Major A. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Clarke, J. S.
Johnston, Thomas
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mort, D. L.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Moses, J. J. H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Compton, Joseph
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Cove, William G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Muff, G.


Daggar, George
Kelly, W. T.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Dallas, George
Kennedy, Thomas
Murnin, Hugh


Dalton, Hugh
Kinley, J.
Naylor, T. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Day, Harry
Knight, Holford
Noel Baker, P. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lang, Gordon
Oldfleid, J. R.


Dickson, T.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Dukes, C.
Lathan, G
Palin, John Henry




Paling, Wilfrid
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Townend, A. E.


Palmer, E. T.
Shillaker, J. F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Perry, S. F.
Shinwell, E.
Turner, B.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Vaughan, D. J.


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Simmons, C. J.
Viant, S. P.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Sinkinson, George
Walkden, A. G.


Pole, Major D. G.
Sitch, Charles H.
Walker, J.


Potts, John S.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wallace, H. W.


Price, M. P.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Watkins, F. C.


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Richards, R.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col D. (Rhondda)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wellock, Wilfred


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Snell, Harry
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Ritson, J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sorensen, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Romeril, H. G.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Rowson, Guy
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson, C. K. (Sheffield, Attercllfle)


Sanders, W. S.
Sullivan, J.
Wilton, J. (Oldham)


Sandham, E
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sawyer, G. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Scrymgeour, E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wise, E. F.


Scurr, John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Sexton, James
Thurtle, Ernest
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Tillett, Ben



Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sherwood, G. H.
Toole, Joseph
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. William Whiteley.


Shield, George William
Tout, W. J

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not select the next two Amendments—
(1) In page 7, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no price rates shall be fixed differentiating to the disadvantage of coal used for the production of gas and electric light or power or in relation to the supply of water in comparison with those for coal sold for any other purpose";
(2) In line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the owners of coalmines shall not in respect of any coal sold or supplied by them, which is used, or intended to be used, for carbonisation or gasification, show any undue preference in the matter of prices in favour of such coal as against coal of the same nature and grade supplied to gas undertakers.
The following Amendment—in page 7, line 24, at the end, to insert the words
and of paying any compensation that may be due from the district fund in consequence of an order by a committee of investigation or by the judicial commissioners as hereinafter provided.
anticipates Amendments later on the Order Paper.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I take it that we could, if necessary, have a general discussion on this subject, and that we shall not be prejudiced?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would be inconvenient to have a discussion on this Amendment, at this stage, anticipating the results of Amendments;, not
yet reached, which provide for the setting up of judicial commissioners. If the subsequent Amendments are carried, the consequential Amendment required here could be moved on Report. The Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman)—in page 7, line 24, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that no moneys so raised shall be applied to facilitate the sale of any coal to he exported at a less price than is charged for such class of coal for bunkering ships.
is not required now. Clause 2 (3, a) has been deleted. The central scheme no longer provides for collecting levies for facilitating the sale of coal.

Mr. SMITHERS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 4, to leave out from the word "by," to the word "of," in line 6, and to insert instead thereof the words
an accountant authorised by the executive board for this purpose.
This Amendment relates to the following Amendment—in line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
and for the submission by him of a report to the executive board.
Clause 3 deals with the provisions of the district schemes and the powers of the executive board. One of the powers is given in paragraph (k), which provides
for the production to and inspection by the executive board or any person authorised by them of books and accounts relating to any coal mine in the district;
The executive board is composed of coalowners, who either own coal mines in the districts or are competitors with the owners of other coal mines in the district, and it seems to me that it would not be fair that one coalowner in an official position should be able to examine the books, accounts and papers of his competitors. Although we on this side do not agree with the Bill, I think that if the Bill is to be passed it is necessary for the executive board to be provided with necessary information, and my submission is that the executive board shall employ an accountant to examine the books and papers, and make a report to them.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): As this Amendment and the following Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member are very serviceable Amendments, we will accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
and for the submission by him of a report to the executive board."—[Mr. Smithers.]

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, after the word "by," to insert the words:
the amounts of the standard tonnage, or the quota, or the price below which coal cannot be sold or.
It may be that the general words in the Clause were intended to cover these three subjects for arbitration; indeed, I think they were so intended, because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in the course of the discussion on another Clause the other day, said that owners would be protected, that it was one of the safeguards given to a dissentient owner in that he could go to arbitration both on the quota, the price fixing, and the standard tonnage. In order that that shall be made quite clear, I am moving to insert these words in the Clause. The words in the Clause as printed simply provide that the scheme shall set up a method of arbitration for securing that any owner of a coal mine in a district who is aggrieved by the act or omission of the executive board may refer that matter to arbitration. I do not think it follows that these three particular matters would come within the general words, and, if it be the intention
of the Government that arbitration should be followed in respect of these three matters, it cannot do harm to insert them in the Clause.
While I am moving this Amendment, I would ask the Government to give us a little more information with regard to this arbitration. Under Clause 11 the Arbitration Act is barred. In the ordinary course, when a person aggrieved is given by Statute the right to go to arbitration, the Arbitration Act provides how the arbitrators are to be appointed and what is to happen if one of the parties claims arbitration and the other party refuses to appoint an arbitrator. It deals with obstruction of that sort, and it enables any legal question that arises in the course of arbitration to be referred to the Court, and, generally, it regularises what would otherwise be a very obscure, catch-as-catch-can sort of procedure of arbitration.
For some reason, the Government have struck out this well-recognised form of arbitration and have provided that the scheme shall secure to an owner an arbitration without any of the safeguards which this House in the Act of 1889 thought its duty to insert into general arbitration matters. Now we are asked to give up a well-understood procedure and to accept a procedure which is not defined at all. It is no answer for the Government to say "the scheme is going to set up the procedure." That means that the Government do not intend to follow the provisions of the 1889 Act. If that is so, they should say now in what way they mean not to follow the 1889 Act. I do not know what the Government mean. They say at one moment, in order to pacify doubts, that they are providing a form of arbitration, and yet in their Bill they minimise that and prevent a person who has gone to arbitration from going to a Court of Law in the event of a legal question arising. It may be for that purpose that they have knocked out the 1889 Act. If so, let them say so, because some legal question may arise which an ordinary lay arbitrator cannot deal with. If the 1889 Act is incorporated, there is power then to go to the Law Courts to have that legal point settled.
The only reason, it seems to me, that the Government should decide to bar this 1889 Act is in order to deprive the
claimant from having his legal right of going to the Law Courts in the case of a legal point arising. I must wait and hear what the Government are going to say. If that is so, then this arbitration is a pure farce. You are putting compulsion on owners of collieries without giving them a satisfactory means of appeal; and I am not wrong in saying that the means of appeal would be unsatisfactory. Parliament considered in 1889 the form of arbitration and passed the Act of that year. They did that because they thought the provision then made was fair and would secure justice. It seems to me to be setting back the hands of the clock if the Government now are going to say that, notwithstanding the unsatisfactory nature of arbitration without the Act, we are still going to insist upon arbitration without the Act, because we are going to deprive the appellant of his right to go to law.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Amendment moved relates to paragraph (l) which is designed to give any owner in a district scheme agreed to within this scheme the right to go to an independent arbitration with a view to finding a remedy. I have always understood that the words "act or omission" and more particularly, for this purpose, the word "act" covers all the steps that will be taken by the referees in any district scheme that would cover the standard tonnage or quota or fixing of minimum prices. That is the plain intention of this Clause as it stands and in practice I think I can say to the Committee, with safety, that there would not be a moment's doubt. My right hon. Friend says, "If this is the case why not specify it in the Clause?" I am advised that the danger of specification is that it may make it appear that these three duties he enumerates are not duties of the executive body. We are on much safer ground in relying on the word "act," it is comprehensive.
As regards the other points, I cannot pronounce on the law regarding arbitration in the Act of 1889, but, if I may anticipate, I should like to say, regarding Clause II, that the Attorney-General will deal with any legal considerations involved. My opinion is that that is elaborate legislation, and for purposes of this kind, namely, direct business arbitration, all that machinery is not required.
The machinery of the Act of 1889 for arbitration is provided for parts of this Bill, but the machinery is not required for the whole of the Bill. This Clause makes provision for the parts to which it shall apply. That is the position as I understand Clause 11 of this Bill.
My hon. and learned Friend reminds me that Clause 11 is now part of the legislation which has been passed.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: It is true it became part of the Bill, in the face of this sort of discussion, at four minutes to Eleven, when the matter was last under discussion. I intervene for half-a-minute to obtain the assurance that when it came up for consideration on Report, we should be free to re-open it.

Mr. GRAHAM: There is no misunderstanding on that point. That is quite true regarding the Report stage of the Bill. What I say is that for the Committee stage, in which we are now engaged, this matter is already passed.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the questions which I put, or else I cannot understand him. I understand that Clause 11 is part of the Bill until we get to the Report stage, but am I right that by Clause 11 it is intended to deprive those who go to arbitration under Clause 3 of the rights under the Arbitration Act of 1889? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question, or if he prefers that the Law Officer himself should answer it, then I hope the Law Officer will advise the Committee on the matter, for it is important. If he says that this is arbitration for the protection of a dissentient coalowner, we must see what value there is in the protection. There are two forms of protection: one provided by the Act, which is real protection; the other is protection by arbitration provided for in this scheme. But the right hon. Gentleman has not given any direction as to what is to be contained in the scheme. As the Bill now stands, it debars the Act of 1889, and it puts nothing in its place.
8.0 p.m.
There are two different values to be placed on arbitration, dependent on whether Clause 11 excludes arbitration under the Act of 1889, or whether it does not do so. I ask, which is the case. I
hope that the Law Officer will reply. May I ask this further question: This is a Clause by which it is intended to enable the coalowner—what I call the dissentient coalowner—in a district, to go to arbitration, first of all, on the question of the quota. He may say his quota is too little. What are the parties to do? First of all, each district has a district allocation, and then each pit has a quota. The allocation will, presumably, be spread among all the owners in that district. Supposing that there are 100 owners and one of them goes to arbitration after the allocation has been made—after each of the 100 has got his quota—and the arbitrator says "Your quota is too little and we are going to give you some more. You shall have 50,000 tons a year more." Where is it going to come from? It has to come from the rest, out of the quotas which have been given to the other 99. Are they to go to arbitration, and, if so, is it to be before the same arbitrator, or are you to have 99 or 100 separate arbitrations? Do not forget that this is a compulsory Bill and is quite different from a voluntary scheme. In the case of a voluntary scheme, they are working together to get the scheme through, or they can go out of the scheme, but under a compulsory Measure the dissentient will go to his advisers and say, "How can I get out of this?" and it will be pointed out that he can break the scheme down if there are to be 100 arbitrations. If his quota is increased, it has to come from somebody else and the question will arise: Are they all to be parties to the arbitration? Are they to be bound by the arbitration, or, if not, is each of them in turn to be entitled to go to arbitration because his quota has been cut down? If the executive Board have said "We think your quota is such and such a figure" there is a good prima facie case for that man to go to arbitration, for by means of further arbitration he may hope to get back some of that which is being taken away from him.
Having done that as regards the quota, then comes the question of price. How is the dissentient to have his price altered? Are you to take into account his efficiency and the cost of production and the fact that if the district price were kept in his case, he might be profiteering to a large extent. Would he be entitled to say to the arbitrators,
"I want to sell at a lower price. I could do better business and more business by selling at a lower price." Are the other owners of pits in the district to be able to go each to his arbitrator and say, "I want mine altered because the other fellow has had his altered." We ought to know these things. It may be that such cases would not arise, but if they did it would lead to absolute chaos, and there is nothing in the Bill which can reassure us. The right hon. Gentleman should assure us whether everybody is entitled to arbitrate on all these questions, and who are to be parties to the arbitration. Is each arbitration to breed a fresh one and is each owner in the district to be entitled to go to arbitration?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal with the arbitration point, and I propose to answer on the other matter that has been raised. I should be very sorry indeed if I thought for a moment that the results of the arbitration proposed under the Bill would be anything like the picture which has just been drawn by the right hon. Gentleman. But let us be quite clear as to the arrangements in the Bill, and I think a description of those arrangements will very largely remove any doubts which remain on this matter. There is a central or national machinery for determining or ascertaining the total output of the country as a whole. That national machinery is representative of all the 21 districts, or whatever the smaller number of districts will be after they have been amalgamated under the Bill. In each district there is a district allocation, which is, of course, a portion of the aggregate national demand. Within that district allocation there is the application of a quota to each pit within that district, which quota is uniform, but may be varied from time to time, and which relates to the standard tonnage fixed for each pit within the district.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Each district can alter it?

Mr. GRAHAM: I will come to that point in a moment. The real test, as I have always tried to explain to the Committee, is the fixing of an accurate standard tonnage for the individual pits. I have not the least doubt but that that
standard tonnage will be fixed for the individual pits or undertakings in this country with relation to some recent period, and to what those undertakings have actually been doing, and will be related also, of course, to the aggregate demand and the district allocation. If the standard tonnage is fixed as I have described, and if the application of the quota is uniform to all the undertakings in that district, only varying in the way I have mentioned, therefore, the field for dispute and for arbitration about the quota is appreciably reduced, and it is much more likely indeed that there might be dispute about the standard tonnage. Then let the Committee observe that the district machinery is represenative of all the owners in that district and in most of the districts there are majorities—in some cases large majorities, in other districts email majorities, and in only one or two districts minorities—who will be concerned, but they do not apply for arbitration in the way suggested. They go forward as a representative body, of which they themselves are members, and they discuss the situation of the undertakings in the district upon which the standard tonnage has been fixed. They know the circumstances and may be trusted, if they know anything about their business, to come to a sound arrangement. Supposing some of them are aggrieved or disaffected. Then they have the right to go to an independent arbitrator, some competent person who will take into account all the factors mentioned by my right hon. Friend, and ascertained whether the quota is a fair one, having regard to the history of the undertakings. If it is not fair, then he will give a decision which is enforceable, and of course if that decision involves a higher standard tonnage it must be carried out by means of adjustment with the other undertakings in the district.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Who makes the adjustment?

Mr. GRAHAM: The ninety-nine others are bound to accept it because they themselves are parties to the arbitration, or at all events have submitted the case from their body to this independent individual. That is the way in which it will be fixed, and I suggest it is the only way in which it ever could be fixed, and I do not
anticipate anything like the wholesale disputes and arbitrations which have been visualised to-night. Do let us remember that it is to the interest of the industry to get on with the scheme when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and it is not to the interests of the industry or any other industry to spend the remainder of its days in disputes and arbitrations.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): It may be convenient if I endeavour to answer the right hon. Gentleman at this stage, only prefacing my remarks with an expression of regret that I cannot answer him more fully at the moment. I think I am right in saying that the questions which he asked are not indicated in the actual Amendment, but those questions were raised quite recently, and I remember collecting a most formidable list of precedents showing the number of recent Acts which contain this very provision that the Arbitration Act of 1889 should not apply. I am afraid I have forgotten most of them for the moment, but I remember that the list started with the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920 and included a great many Acts passed during the lifetime of the last Administration. I had those facts in readiness on a former occasion, but the discussion on this point for some reason did not take place.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: The actual reason was that in order to keep faith we allowed a Clause to go through, there being no suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule on that occasion, and although we wished to have an explanation on this point, only three minutes were left, and it was impossible to have it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No doubt that is the explanation. At any rate, I am sorry that I am not quite so well primed with information to-night as I was on that occasion, but I think I can advise the Committee to a certain extent. Of course it is the fact, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Arbitration Act of 1889 sets out the general scheme under which arbitrations are to be taken, and it is part and parcel of the provisions of that Act, among other things, that if you accept arbitration you have to take the arbitrator's law as well as his facts. But in all these
recent Acts to which I have referred, it has been found desirable to exclude the Arbitration Act of 1889, and probably the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many judges have expressed the view that sometimes it is unsatisfactory to combine arbitration proceedings with legal proceedings. Many proceedings start with arbitration, and then the case goes before a Judge from whose decision there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the House of Lords. This procedure has been described as combining the worst features of both law and arbitration. In these circumstances I can well understand that the Legislature in recent years has very frequently taken the course which we have adopted here, of excluding the Arbitration Act of 1889, except in so far as any of its provisions may be applied by the scheme or the rules made under this Measure. I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already said that this matter will be considered before the Report stage, and I repeat and emphasise that statement. We will look into this matter very carefully, and on Report stage I shall come prepared and armed with the authorities which I had on a previous occasion, in order that I may be able to answer the right hon. Gentleman more fully.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: I am perfectly prepared to accept the Attorney-General's statement that a Clause to this effect appears in several other Acts, but that does not justify putting it into this Bill without some better reason than mere precedent. There is one feature about this Bill which we ought to bear in mind in discussing this question. There are no fewer than 21 different districts, and the Attorney-General will agree with me that there are various matters of law which quite obviously will arise under this scheme. There is one of the duties of the executive board of which we were reminded in the Debate on the Clause immediately preceding this, which struck me at the time as a very forcible illustration of what I mean. Let me call attention to Subsection (2, f) of Clause 3 and the provision for ensuring that the actual consideration, obtained by the sale or supply of the several classes of coal, shall not be less than the minimum price. I suggest
that there you might get a very difficult question of law of the sort I mean. You have a scheme providing for the classification of coal. As has been pointed out you may in fact, get different qualities of coal, even from the same seam in the same district, and you might have questions arising of different qualities in coal which is classified as being all the same. The sort of point which might arise in this. If in order to meet a defect of quality of a particular coal got from a particular classification of coal you make an allowance for that, if you like in anticipation of threatened litigation, is that or is it not a diminution in the price paid? Obviously, that sort of device might be used collusively.
I am pointing out that you might get in one district or another the arbitrator saying that this is or is not to be taken into account in saying whether or not the proper price has been obtained. You might get in one district one decision and in another district another decision, and no means of deciding as between the coal owners of one district and the coalowners in another the propriety of the decision. The particular illustration may be a good one or it may be a bad one, but I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that it is at least not inconceivable that points of law may very frequently arise in which you may, as the whole thing tends to be final, have one determination made by an arbitrator in one district, and a different determination by one or more arbitrators in the same district; but, at any rate, you may get a conflict between a decision in one district with the decision in another district, with the result that you get a state of chaos between the coalowners of the country.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman, when the point was brought up before but not discussed, to say that it was intended definitely that there should be no appeal to the Courts from the case stated by the arbitrators. I understood him to say that that was to be the effect of it, unless, of course, a scheme provided for it—as it could—but unless the scheme provided that there might be reference to the Courts, a reference to the Courts would be excluded. I am bound to say that, whatever precedents there may be in other Acts which do not raise problems of this sort, it is a very serious thing in this Bill, which raises
the sort of problems which we are now discussing, that there should be no machinery for referring this matter to the Courts at all.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 272.

Division No. 230.]
AYES.
[8.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Power, Sir John Cecil


Atholl, Duchess of
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Atkinson, C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Purbrick, R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Grace, John
Ramsbotham, H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Berry, Sir George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Remer, John R.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Boyce, H. L.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bracken, B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Salmon, Major I.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hanbury, C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Sassoon, Rt. Han. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Buchan, John
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Savery, S. S.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, R. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, Louis W. Sheffield, Hallam)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerset, Thomas


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. D. (W'morland)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtautd, Major J. S.
Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomson, Sir F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Locker-Lampeon, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Datrymple-Whlte, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dixey, A. C.
Meller, R. J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Withers, Sir John James


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


England, Colonel A.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



Fcrmoy, Lord
Muirhead, A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Captain Wallace and Sir George Penny.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)



Ford, Sir P. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Arnott, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Alpass, J. H.
Attlee, Clement Richard


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ammon, Charles George
Ayles, Walter


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Angell, Norman
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hoffman, P. C.
Perry, S. F.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barr, James
Hopkin, Daniel
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Batey, Joseph
Horrabin, J. F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bellamy, Albert
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pole, Major D. G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Isaacs, George
Potts, John S.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Price, M. P.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Benson, G.
Johnston, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richards, R.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Bowen, J. W.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Ritson, J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kennedy, Thomas
Romeril, H. G.


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bromley, J.
Kinley, J.
Rowson, Guy


Brooke, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brothers, M.
Knight, Holford
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lang, Gordon
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sandham, E.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Lathan, G.
Sawyer, G. F.


Buchanan, G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Burgess, F. G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Scurr, John


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lawrence, Susan
Sexton, James


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lawson, John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cameron, A. G.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sherwood, G. H.


Cape, Thomas
Leach, W.
Shield, George William


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Charieton, H. C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shillaker, J. F.


Chater, Daniel
Lees, J.
Shinwell, E.


Church, Major A. G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clarke, J. S.
Lindley, Fred W.
Simmons, C. J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sinkinson, George


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sitch, Charles H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Compton, Joseph
Longden, F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cove, William G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Daggar, George
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Dallas, George
Lunn, William
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dalton, Hugh
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Malcolm (Basset law)
Snell, Harry


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McElwee, A.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dickson, T.
McEntee, V. L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Dukes, C
Mackinder, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Duncan, Charles
McKinlay, A.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Ede, James Chuter
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Edmunds, J. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Strauss, G. R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sullivan, J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mansfield, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Egan, W. H.
March, S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Marcus, M.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Freeman, Peter
Marley, J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marshall, Fred
Thurtle, Ernest


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mathers, George
Tillett, Ben


Gibbins, Joseph
Matters, L. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Maxton, James
Toole, Joseph


Gill, T. H.
Melville, Sir James
Tout, W. J.


Gillett, George M.
Messer, Fred
Townend, A. E.


Gossling, A. G.
Middleton, G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Gould, F.
Mills, J. E.
Turner, B.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Milner, J.
Vaughan, D. J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walkden, A. G.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morley, Ralph
Walker, J.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Wallace, H. W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham. N.)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mort, D. L.
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, Capt. W. P (Portsmouth. C.)
Moses, J. J. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hardie, George D.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Muff, G.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muggeridge, H. T.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh
Wheatley, Rt. Han. J.


Mayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff. S.)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oldfield, J. R.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Herriotts, J.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palmer, E. T.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)




Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


Wise, E. F.

Mr. MOND: I beg to move, in page 8, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
(o) for the completion of contracts entered into prior to the publication of a scheme.
If this, or a similar Amendment, be not inserted in the Bill it will not be possible for people who have entered into contracts prior to the scheme being imposed to complete those contracts. It would be impossible for manufacturers to have any idea of their coal costs for the future, and that would naturally create a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has an Amendment on the point on the Paper later, and if he will give me an assurance that be will move that Amendment I shall not press this one.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I rise at once to give my hon. Friend that assurance. This subject was very carefully considered, and in the Clause which will later be submitted and explained by the Attorney-General my hon. Friend will see that his point is met.

Mr. MOND: In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel LANE FOX: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, to leave out paragraph (b).
This Amendment is really complementary to the Amendment passed some days ago by which we took out of the Bill the provision for a central levy on home coal to raise a subsidy for export coal. Paragraph (b) provides for a district scheme, and by asking the Committee to delete this paragraph I am asking them to delete the power to impose a district levy. The proposal in this paragraph is not so serious in one respect as the former one, because it affects only a district instead of the whole country, but the principle is the same. There is the same element of unfairness to home industry as compared with foreign industry, which would be able to obtain British coal at a lower rate. I do not wish to go into the arguments raised on the former Amendment, which was fully debated at the time, but I think it must be admitted on all sides that if, as a result of this or any other scheme, home producers have to pay more
for their coal than their competitors abroad there must be a distinct grievance, which will react very badly on industry and on employment in this country. That it merely affects a district is no reason for permiting a "coal ring" to have statutory power to raise a levy to the detriment of our home industry. As has been shown by the operation of the Five Counties Scheme it is quite possible for this sort of arrangement to be made voluntarily, and there is far less objection under a voluntary arrangement, because obviously competition can come in if the operations become too serious and are really detrimental to the country; but when by an Act of Parliament we make it a Statutory provision, of course the element of competition disappears, and the chance of a consumer getting redress is taken away.
There is an even stronger reason against this paragraph being left in the Bill. Without the provision as to a central levy, which we struck out of the Bill a few days ago, this district levy cannot possibly operate, because any district scheme has to receive the consent of the central council, and it is obvious that a council which represents the whole of the districts will not consent to one particular district having an advantage in the sale of its export coal which is not common to the other districts, and so there will always be a majority on the central council against any district which tries to secure to itself an advantage which other districts would not be able to obtain. The provisions of this paragraph therefore become absolutely unworkable and absolutely futile, and in the interests of tidiness alone I suggest to the Government that this miserable fragment of an undesirable whole should be removed. We have been heartened in regard to this proposal by the Liberal speeches which have been made in support of it. One source of our information in support of this Amendment has been that derived from the speeches we have heard in this House made from Liberal benches which have absolutely convinced us that the proposal of a central levy in the Bill was both mischievous and unworkable. I hope hon. Members will agree to delete
this provision also and treat it in the same spirit of common sense as that which has been shown in regard to other proposal.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I have always regarded this Clause as being closely connected with the one which the House recently decided to delete. The export levy was contained in two Clauses of the Bill in relation to the central scheme and the district scheme. Powers were given to the Central Committee to impose the levy in order to cheapen the export of coal from the country as a whole, and after full debate it was decided that the provision should be omitted. Now we come to the corresponding provision in the Clause that is before us, which empowers the district to impose a similar levy on all coal raised in the district in order to promote the export. I should be very interested to learn from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether he can distinguish between these two provisions, and whether the decision which has been reached in the one case should not also apply to the other. Prima facie, I should have thought that it would, but before making any statement upon the subject I shall be interested to hear the statement which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to make to inform the Committee why, while the House has rejected the principle of the export levy, he should retain it when applied to the district.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I quite agree that from some points of view we are discussing substantially the same problem in the district levy as was discussed a night or two ago when the national proposal was rejected by a narrow majority in the House. I should be out of order in recalling the circumstances of that Debate except in so far as they correspond, but I think I am entitled to say that probably there is a certain amount of misunderstanding, and the position is one of which I do not exclude the possibility of review, because, rightly understood, it is very largely a question of differential prices, and of an effort to keep certain classes of coal on the market, which can only be done by steps being taken to ease the price in that market, whether for a short or a long time as may be required. That part of the national scheme is, however, for the time being out of the Bill, and
my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) quite properly put the question whether there is any distinction between a national or central scheme and the corresponding district scheme, and he added that if there is any distinction of that kind he hoped that the Government would accept this Amendment.
I have no hesitation in saying at once that in my view there are vital distinctions between the national and the district levies, and I can give a very good illustration as to what would happen in Scotland as between Lanarkshire, and other parts, and the Fifeshire district. That really accounts, to some extent, for the appearance of this permissive district levy scheme. Assume for a moment that the difficulties among the owners in Scotland are overcome, and that a marketing scheme is provided for that part of the country, the effect of which is to improve the pithead price level for pithead coal, and to strengthen the general return to the industry and its resources. Then one of the effects will be to increase the amount available for miners wages in the Scottish wages ascertainment district, but the immediate result will be to place the Fifeshire district in Scotland, which is overwhelmingly an export district, at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the Scottish coalfield. Unless there were some method of adjusting prices within the scheme as a whole Fifeshire would not be able to retain more than a fraction of its export trade. Accordingly, that matter was under discussion with the Scottish owners among others and indeed owners in other districts in the country where the conditions correspond. It was suggested that it would not be possible to work the scheme, or the scheme would not become applicable unless it included a device of that kind.
The object of a levy on the whole of the coal within say the Scottish area, or any other of the 21 districts, would be to ease the export prices, in order to retain the export market, and incidentally to meet those different conditions in ways applicable within that district, according to the variety of the trade as between home and export. Therefore, there is a vital distinction when we come to the district levy as compared with the national pool. It may be suggested that, if you have a district levy in all the 21
districts in this country, you will, in fact, achieve the national levy which has already been deleted by the House. I would say at once that there is no possibility or danger of any result of that kind developing. In the first place, I have already reminded the House that it is purely permissive in character, and that the only effect of the decision of last week was to take away from the Board of Trade the power of bringing the central levy into operation. I am perfectly satisfied that in some of the districts where these schemes are established a levy will be proposed. It might also be on a national basis, but, of course, on voluntary lines, subject to the consideration that all the owners come in. There can, however, be no question of an accumulation of, say, 21 district levies having a national pool on the lines of the proposal which has been deleted.
In the first place, I am satisfied that there would never he a levy in more than, perhaps, a small number of districts, because this is a part of the Bill which has always been permissive, and only to be applied where it was necessary to facilitate the sale of certain classes of coal, particularly export coal and coal for the heavy industries, and where the market should not be retained on any other basis. This is where, in the absence of a scheme of this kind, the trade would be lost, and that is the central consideration. In the first place, therefore, there will a levy of this kind, probably, only in a number of districts, but certainly in a district of the nature of Scotland, which I am assuming would be covered by the scheme, and where the problem is between exporting Fife and the rest of the country, which is more particularly devoted to inland demand. Moreover, there is this further safeguard, if the House desires a safeguard in any district levy—and that is all that is before us now—that the proceeds can only be used to facilitate the sale of certain classes of coal within that district. They can never be transferred to any central organisation, and, in the absence of the provision which has been deleted, cannot become part of the central scheme. I regard this provision as essential in the district schemes. Otherwise, there will be a very serious problem in Scotland, and that problem might be so large as to prevent the appearance of a
scheme at all, which in my opinion would be a disaster, in a very important part of the coalfields. I trust that with this explanation the Amendment will be rejected.

Commodore DOUGLAS KING: The President of the Board of Trade has made an effort to draw a distinction between a central scheme and the district scheme with which we are now dealing, but the difference is merely a matter of volume, a matter of size. The problem is exactly the same whether it applies to the whole country or whether it applies to the district. The right hon. Gentleman has given us an example, as he says, between Lanarkshire and Fifeshire. He says that the inland market must assist the export market if the export trade is to be maintained. I should like to put to him the biggest example that we have at the present time of a levy for the assistance of export trade, namely, that of the Central Collieries Commercial Association. I think he will agree with me that the main reason for the levy in that case, and the main reason why a subsidy on exports was ever agreed to in that district, where there was no compulsory control, no 100 per cent. control as there is at the present time, was that the inland market came to the conclusion that it was to their advantage to entice other collieries, or a cerain number of collieries, to send their coal abroad. They were actually subsidising the sending of coal abroad in order to relieve the pressure which then existed in the home market. It was not really a public-spirited effort to increase the export trade, but in order to relieve themselves of a certain amount of competition in the home market.
We know that under the Five Counties Scheme the export coal from that district is somewhere about 8 per cent. of the total output, and they have a levy of 3d. a ton to give a certain subsidy to that 8 per cent. of export coal. But that, as I have said, was not done with the idea of saving the export trade, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested may have been the case as between Lanarkshire and Fifeshire. It was done really with the idea of relieving the home trade of additional competition. It was found that when the export trade from Yorkshire and the other counties in the scheme was bad, and they were not able to com-
pete against their foreign competitors, they were, instead of exporting their coal, coming into competition with the companies which had been dealing in the home trade. That, of course, pushed down the price, and acted adversely on the collieries producing for the home trade. I do not call that a selfish reason. It was a business reason. It was not a public-spirited idea of helping the export trade so much as a desire to relieve themselves of competition that induced the 92 per cent. of home trade producers to subsidise the 8 per cent. of export trade in those counties. Unless some such situation arises as between, say, Lanarkshire and Fifeshire, I do not think that the home trade will be found to be public-spirited enough to act in that way. The right hon. Gentleman knows his own countrymen from a business point of view better than I do, but, if they are able to enjoy their home trade at an increased profit, I cannot quite visualise them sharing that profit and saying that, as the conditions are rather hard on the export trade, they will hand over to them some of the profits that they are making on the inland market. I can no more visualise that than I can visualise the four-fifths of the country's production which is used for home consumption putting a levy on itself for the purpose of subsidising and assisting the export trade.
What is going to happen in South Wales, for instance, under a district scheme? We know that something like 80 per cent. of the production of South Wales is exported, and only 20 per cent., or something less, is consumed in this country. It is quite impossible, on that 20 per cent., to raise a sufficient levy to provide what would really be an adequate subsidy to assist the export trade in South Wales. Suppose that the Five-Counties Scheme, if it still continues as a scheme, were to carry on the subsidy or to increase it, or suppose that Northumberland and Durham raised a subsidy on their home-consumed coal to subsidise their export coal. We know that the types of coal are not identical, but at the same time it is not likely that the South Wales representatives on the Central Scheme would consent to the subsidising of export coal from other districts, when they in South Wales could not possibly
obtain a subsidy from any scheme that could be raised in that district.
I maintain that the levy under the central scheme which we defeated last week only differs from the district scheme in the matter of scale. Obviously, the district scheme is bound to be smaller in extent than the central scheme, but its object is exactly the same, its incidence would be the same, and, therefore, I have been hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would almost consider this Amendment as consequential on the Amendment of last week, and would allow it to be carried. I was certainly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) failed to see the similarity between the two cases, seeing that, when we went into the Lobby last week to defeat the central scheme, after very powerful speeches from below the Gangway, the position was perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman and other Members on those benches. I should certainly be very surprised indeed if they could find anything in what the President of the Board of Trade has told us which will show any very real distinction as between the central scheme which we defeated last week and the district scheme which we are hoping to defeat to-night. I hope we shall repeat the process of last week and defeat the district scheme.

Major GLYN: I am really astonished that the President of the Board of Trade has not at once said this is practically the same thing in another dress as what was decided on last week, that it is, therefore, consequential and that the matter is settled by last week's vote. I was rather concerned to hear the right hon. Gentleman hint that even the decision of last week must be subject to some form of review. It makes it all the more important that on this question, which is a matter of local arrangements, which in a cumulative condition become a national arrangement, we should see whether the Committee would have preferred something carried which is against the opinion of those who expressed themselves in the Lobby last week. But there is something even more important. I believe all the industries of the country which depend on coal are up against a very serious position, and the mere hint of any increase in the cost of coal for our own industries in order
to subsidise the export trade will have a paralysing effect to a very great extent upon trying to enable our people to key themselves up to face a very serious situation. No one knows better than the President of the Board of Trade that in his office, which he adorns in many ways, he must in his heart of hearts wish to see British industry assisted.
The problems of our industry depend on the basic price of fuel. Cheap coal means more employment. None of us wishes to see one industry suffer in order to benefit the rest. I have frequently heard that the miners have paid for other industries, but surely the miners realise one thing. I admit that, all through the War, and after it, they bore very heavy burdens on their shoulders. I sat for a mining constituency till they turned me out, and I gained a very high respect for miners. I recognise the difference between their trade and any other. I recognise the extraordinary heroism they showed in times of danger. I never met an unpatriotic miner in my life, but I have met people in the House who seem to assume that the miner wishes to be treated as a man apart from the rest of the country. I believe the miners would be the very last to say they wish to put one man out of employment by any selfish action of their own.
9.0 p.m.
None of us represents industries. We represent constituencies, which are in miniature the whole national life of the country. We are not thinking of a section or a class. We think of the good of the country as a whole. Surely the whole Debate last week showed that the opinion of the House, as representing the national feeling, was opposed to taxing one part of the trade which had an immediate effect on our industry for the benefit of giving a competitive impulse to our coal for export. Therefore, I believe in this Amendment we must realise that there is no distinction, and the right hon. Gentleman, usually so clear, was to-night in some difficulty be show the difference between 21 districts all with this power, should they all have the same impulse to do this thing, and a national agreement. It is very hard to see any at all except, as he said, that the Board of Trade, in the first idea which was turned down last week, would have something more to say to it. I was in Scot-
land last week, and I visited some of the coal areas in Fife, and I feel very strongly that this House has to think most carefully what it does, because the opinion, as far as I was able to gain it in a short time, was that the Bill is going to do irreparable damage to the mining industry in Scotland. None of us know how the Bill is going to emerge after these changes, but one thing we have to be quite consistent about is that the cost of fuel to our own industries shall not be put up, because that must be bad for British trade. As far as I can understand from the Debate last week, it is bound to put up the price of coal. That, after all, is the whole object of the scheme. If it does not do that, it will not help our export trade. I am told already that the Westphalian coal people and others are now saying, "We are not quite sure about the position of British coal for export, but if it is going to be a form of subsidised coal, we will also start subsidising," so are we really going to get the benefit that some hope they may get by stimulating export trade? At the same time we are certain only of one thing, that our industry will suffer detriment. Is this the time and place where anyone would suggest that we should do anything of that sort?
I should like to mention one other point. I believe the public utility organisations, which depend entirely on cheap coal, will get their fuel at no very greatly increased price. Obviously, great undertakings like electricity, railways, gas and so on can make forward contracts and get advantageous terms. I believe they can effect even greater economies than they have done in matters of distribution. It is not only that. You cannot get prosperity for any of the public utilities until you restore confidence to the industries of the country, which at present have a feeling of insecurity. I am convinced that this Bill has contributed more towards the feeling of insecurity to British industry than any other Bill that has been put through the House. Until you can restore confidence, you are not going to improve trade. It seems to me that this Amendment is really consequential on what was decided last week, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give us some explanation which will prove that it is indeed a different thing altogether in principle and in fact from what was decided last week. I am cer-
tain, if the Amendment passes, a great many things which we fear, and which when presented to the Committee were defeated last week, will in effect be brought about, greatly to the detriment of British industry, at a time when we want to do everything to stimulate trade and get confidence back to employers of labour, without which they cannot employ men whose only fault is that they have not an opportunity of contributing towards the wealth of the country by getting to their proper employment.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: We have come to a rather perplexing situation with regard to this Amendment because in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has said, this Amendment is, in many respects, consequential on the one which we dealt with last week. I cannot see how, if one is out of the Bill, the other can possibly remain in. My right hon. Friend quoted the words of the Subsection, and I should like to quote them again because the President of the Board of Trade did not deal with the particular point. Sub-section (b) says:
for empowering the executive board, subject to the consent of the central council,"—
these are the words which I want to emphasise—
to collect from the owners of coal mines in the district levies.
Whatever the President may say, the arguments for the central and for the district schemes are exactly the same. His speech to-night, although naturally, under the circumstances, shorter, was exactly on the same lines as the speech which he made when he pleaded for leaving the central levy in the Bill. I cannot see how we can possibly leave in this district levy after the Committee, in their wisdom, have decided to get rid of the central scheme. He says that there are 21 districts and that all of them will be able to make their own arrangements. I cannot imagine any greater chaos than that which will be created if we have 21 different levy schemes for the different districts, and no central scheme.
I shall be interested to hear—and I hope that we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel)—exactly what is the Liberal position. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to hear what the President of the Board of Trade had
to say, and I think that we now want to hear what he has to say. We on this side are definitely against the levy, and the grounds which we gave in great detail last week for rejecting the central levy are equally applicable for rejecting the district levy. I do not see how we can possibly pass a scheme for subsidising the export trade. It will immediately add an additional burden to the industries which have to meet competition from abroad, particularly the iron and steel industry. I do not intend to go into that question, but I know from my own experience the amount of unemployment which at the present moment is being caused in all the big iron and steel districts in this country by reason of the fact that cheap iron and steel and cheap manufactured goods are coming into the country. If we give a levy deliberately to our foreign competitors by selling them cheap coal while putting up the price to our own customers in this country the position will become worse than it is at the present moment.
I would like to emphasise the small point made by the Mover of the Amendment that even for the sake of tidiness it would be right to accept the Amendment and turn out the district levy, just as the central levy has been got rid of I cannot conceive what may happen if we allow the district levy to be left in the Bill when we have prevented the central body from making any levy whatever On many occasions it has been said that we consider this a dear Coal Bill, and it is this provision for a levy and the provisions in respect of prices dealt with earlier this evening which have given the Bill that name. I hope that even now the President of the Board of Trade may reconsider his decision, even though it might be necessary in later stages of the Bill to make a drastic alteration, and will accept this Amendment allowing this Sub-section to be left out as was done in the case of the central scheme.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I must confess that the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment has taken me by surprise. I certainly thought that when the central levy was left out the Government had accepted the decision of the Committee that we were not to have a levy for subsidising the export trade. I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman just now. He is generally
lucid but I confess that he did not indicate what the difference is between a district levy and the central levy. He said that you could establish a pool in Scotland by which the export trade could be subsidised at the expense of the home trade. That was exactly the point upon which I have given practically the only vote which I have given against the right hon. Gentleman upon this Bill. I do not like any of the Bill. I throw the whole responsibility for it on to the Government, but I did vote against the export levy because I thought that that was the worst feature of the Bill.
I certainly do not like this part of the Bill and I shall be compelled to go into the Lobby against the right hon. Gentleman to-night if he persists in retaining this Sub-section. The principle is exactly the same as that which was dealt with last week. By means of district levies the country will find itself in the very position which we wished to avoid when we rejected the Sub-section last week. I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter and see whether he cannot meet us by accepting the Amendment or amending the Clause so that we shall not have this particular feature of putting a tax upon the home trade for the benefit of the export trade.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I feel it my duty to emphasise what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). We are greatly astonished at the attitude which has been taken by the Government in this case. We should certainly have expected that on this matter the Government would have accepted the very deliberate decision of the Committee last week, which was, that in the view of Parliament the home consumer ought not to be taxed by means of levy in order to give a subsidy to the coal which is exported to the advantage of the foreign consumer. I listened attentively to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in order to see whether there was any substantial difference between the issue which was decided last week and the issue which is before us now. I cannot find that he had in any way distinguished between the two. The principle is exactly the same. Indeed, the very illustration which he
gave emphasised that. He said that in Scotland you have two coalfields. You have Lanark and you have File, and the proposal now is that the consumers of Lanark coal shall be made to pay a levy in order to promote the export of Fife coal. If those districts had happened to be two separate districts, or if under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, they afterwards decide they will be two districts, then the application of such a levy would be impossible. But it is because they happen to be one district now that you adopt the very principle which the Committee condemned last week and are going to tax one section for the benefit of the other.
It was decided that the Lancashire consumers should not be taxed in order to promote the export of Durham coal, but you are proposing that the Lanarkshire consumers shall be taxed in order to pro-mote the export of Fife coal. But what was done last week was not so much on account of the varying interests of one district and another, but what the House had principally in mind was the home consumer and the foreign consumer. And now you are proposing, in any district of the country which happens to adopt this scheme, deliberately to raise the price of coal to all the home consumers in that district in order to give a levy so that coal sold abroad to the competitors of British trade should be at a cheaper rate than that which obtained to the home consumer. That is what the Committee condemned last week, and I think it is bound to reassert its opinion to-night. If it does not, the matter will have to be considered on Report stage.
The Committee is taken by surprise at finding this matter raised again. It was fully argued last week. It is not necessary to repeat the arguments because it is impossible to find any new one's on one side or the other. All the contentions raised on the former Amendment apply for and against the present provision. It is true that this is voluntary. It is true that after the Amendment was carried last week we left the power to the coalowners to raise these levies in a voluntary fashion. That is true; and so it would be if we accepted this Amendment. They would still have power to do it in a voluntary fashion in the districts, but Parliament would not be responsible. It would be a trade arrange-
ment, and it might be a question later on whether Parliament should intervene and by Statute forbid it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that once the power is taken from the Central Board to overlook any district arrangement for this purpose, that once each district has the power of forming a scheme, the Government and the Central Board would not have any say at all in the matter? The only safeguard is taken away if the Amendment is accepted.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not agree. If the matter became an abuse it might be necessary for Parliament to legislate to prevent it. That is a matter on which I express no opinion at the moment; but the hon. Member is not right. Subsection (3, e) says:
for empowering the executive board, subject to the consent of the central council, to collect from the owners of coal mines in the district levies, imposed upon them at such times and for such periods as may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the scheme in proportion to the output or disposal of their respective coal mines in the district, for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal produced in the district";
Therefore, there is still consent to be obtained from the Central Council, although Parliament has decided that the Central Council is not to do it itself. The Bill is left in a state of confusion. The fact that there is still left to the whole country voluntary powers is not conclusive on the matter. Our view is that Parliament ought not by legislation to tax, for this is indirectly a tax, the home consumers of coal in order to give a subsidy to our foreign competitors, and I still adhere to that contention. The matter was argued fully on the last occasion and there is nothing new to be said on either side.
This Amendment is not in any way fatal to the Bill. When we carried the Amendment last week the Government accepted the decision, quite rightly and wisely, and went on with the Bill; and the same applies to this Amendment. If it is carried it would not be in any way vital to Part I or to the Bill as a whole. The considerations which led my hon. Friends to abstain on an earlier Amendment do not apply now. We did not feel that we could at this juncture take the responsibility of defeating the Govern-
ment on a provision which they might probably regard as vital to Part I, which they might regard as vital to the Bill as a whole. We did not desire to take that responsibility at this juncture, for reasons which were given by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). But those considerations do not apply now. This Amendment is not more vital to the Bill than the one carried last week and, therefore, for those reasons we on these Benches feel obliged to vote in favour of the Amendment.

Commodore KING: It is gratifying to know that hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway are at the last moment going to support us in the Lobby. [Interruption.] I was only expressing my gratitude. This Amendment has been on the paper for some weeks, and it cannot have escaped the astute Parliamentarians in the Liberal party. They must have realised that it was not consequential, and that we should have to carry it against the Government. They have had ample opportunity to make up their minds as to their position—

Sir H. SAMUEL: I assumed that it would have been accepted by the Government.

Commodore KING: I do not think anybody could rightly anticipate that the Government would voluntarily accept an Amendment which was contested so strongly last week. I was under no such misapprehension, although I have not the benefit of the close counsels with the Government which hon. Members below the Gangway apparently enjoy.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not want the hon. and gallant Member to misunderstand me. I have had no assurances from the Government on the point.

Commodore KING: I realise that, but the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members below the Gangway do apparently have frequent consultations and come to agreements with Members of the Government on the Front Bench. We do not enjoy that privilege, and I should have thought the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) would have known the mind of the President of the Board of Trade with regard to this Amendment. I can only imagine that this last minute change of front
on the part of the Liberal party is the fact that so many of their own Members have left the Committee that it is safe for them to vote against the Government.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out" stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 220.

Division No. 231.]
AYES.
[9.23 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marcus, M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marley, J.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marshall, Fred


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Groves, Thomas E.
Mathers, George


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Grundy, Thomas W.
Matters, L. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Melville, Sir James


Angell, Norman
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Messer, Fred


Arnott, John
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Middleton, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Mills, J. E.


Ayles, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Milner, J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Haycock, A. W.
Montague, Frederick


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hayday, Arthur
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hayes, John Henry
Morley, Ralph


Barr, James
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mort, D. L.


Bellamy, Albert
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Moses, J. J. H.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Herriotts, J.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Muff, G.


Benson, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hoffman, P. C.
Murnin, Hugh


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hollins, A.
Naylor, T. E.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hopkin, Daniel
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bowen, J. W.
Horrabin, J. F.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oldfield, J. R.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Isaacs, George
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Palin, John Henry


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Paling, Wilfrid


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas
Palmer, E. T.


Brooke, W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Perry, S. F.


Brothers, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Pole, Major D. G.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Price, M. P.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Kinley, J.
Raynes, W. R.


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Kirkwood, D.
Richards, R.


Cameron, A. G.
Knight, Holford
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cape, Thomas
Lang, Gordon
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lathan, G.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Charieton, H. C.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ritson, J.


Chater, Daniel
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Church, Major A. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Romeril, H. G.


Clarke, J. S.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Rowson, Guy


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leach, W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sanders, W. S.


Cove, William G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sawyer, G. F.


Daggar, George
Lees, J.
Scrymgeour, E.


Dallas, George
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scurr, John


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, Fred W.
Sexton, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Day, Harry
Logan, David Gilbert
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Dukes, C.
Longden, F.
Shield, George William


Ede, James Chuter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Edmunds, J. E.
Lowth, Thomas
Shillaker, J. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Shinwell, E.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Egan, W. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simmons, C. J.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sinkinson, George


Freeman, Peter
McElwee, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mackinder, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gibbins, Joseph
McKinlay, A.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gill, T. H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gossling, A. G.
Mansfield, W.
Snell, Harry


Gould, F.
March, S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Sorensen, R.
Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Stephen, Campbell
Turner, B.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Vaughan, D. J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Viant, S. P.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Strauss, G. R.
Walkden, A. G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sullivan, J.
Walker, J.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sutton, J. E.
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Watkins, F. C.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wise, E. F.


Thurtle, Ernest
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Tillen, Ben
Wellock, Wilfred
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Tinker, John Joseph
Welsh, James (Paisley)



Toole, Joseph
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tout, W. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Albery, Irving James
England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Sir Bortram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Aske, Sir Robert
Fermoy, Lord
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fielden, E. B.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Atkinson, C.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Meller, R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foot, Isaac
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Millar, J. D.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Forestier-Walker. Sir L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Beaumont, M. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonol T. C. R. (Ayr)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bird, Ernest Roy
Glassey, A. E.
Muirhead, A. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Grace, John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Boyce, H. L.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buchan, John
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Butler, R. A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Purbrick, R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pybus, Percy John


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hanbury, C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtemth, S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, John R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Chapman, Sir S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Christie, J. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Colville, Major D. J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Salmon, Major I.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hurd, Percy A
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hunt, Sir Gerald B.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Iveagh, Countess of
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Savery, S. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Skelton, A. N.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Smithers, Waldron


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Somerset, Thomas


Dixey, A. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Long, Major Eric
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)




Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Turton, Robert Hugh
Womersley, W. J.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Thomson, Sir F.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton.


Tinne, J. A.
Wells, Sydney R.



Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.


Train, J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Withers, Sir John James

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) and other hon. Members' and subsequent Amendments appear to hang together.

Commodore KING: I beg to move, in page 9, line 20, after the word "make," to insert the word "additional."
We have had a certain amount of talk about the last Amendment being consequential upon the Amendment which we dealt with last week. I would submit to the Attorney-General that this Amendment really is on exactly the same lines as the one which he accepted in the previous Clause, also last week. The object of it is to obtain the positive approval of Parliament when any alterations or additions to this particular Section in the Act mentioned in this Sub-section are to take place. Last week, I pointed out to the Committee that, under this Sub-section, it is suggested that it may be possible to bring in matters in addition to or in substitution for matters mentioned in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of this Clause. The point here is exactly the same. Authority is given here under this Act for the Board of Trade to amend the Bill and to add to it and actually to alter the terms of the Measure. I maintain that it is extremely wrong for this Committee or this House, later on, to give sanction for a Bill to be amended without the positive approval of this House.
The Attorney-General agreed with me last week on a very similar Amendment, and I do not think he can draw any distinction between this Amendment and the one he accepted last week. Last week the Amendment he accepted was on Sub-section (4) of Clause 2 and this is Sub-section (4) of Clause 3. In both Clauses the Bill originally laid down that an order was to be laid before the House for negative approval. I maintain that the position is exactly the same. If he considered that that Amendment should be accepted last week, I maintain that
he should also show the same spirit of acceptance on this occasion. [Interruption.] He will notice that it appears rather more complicated now. With regard to any Amendments within the scope of the Act, we agree that it is reasonable that they should receive only the negative approval of the House, even if it requires that, but we maintain that when it is a question of amending, actually altering, what will be an Act of Parliament, it is essential that that should be the subject of a special resolution of approval by both House of Parliament.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The prospect of the Board of Trade having power to amend a scheme without coming to this House to get approval in one form or the other, positive or negative, is one which seems to fill the right hon. and gallant Member with horror. He seems not to have remembered that the part of the Bill which we have previously passed, namely, Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, expressly states that any scheme may be amended with the approval of the Board of Trade.

Commodore KING: Not that the Act should be amended.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have had to apply my mind to these Amendments to see exactly what is contemplated by the word "additional" which he desires to insert, and I am bound to say that I regard it as very difficult to see whether that word has any meaning at all. In the first place, we start with the assumption that a scheme may be amended according to the provision I have just pointed out, in Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, with the approval of the Board of Trade and without any other sanction whatever. Next, we observe that in Sub-section (3, c) of Clause 3 a scheme may provide
for such matters as appear to the Board of Trade to be incidental to, or consequential on, the foregoing provisions of this section.
What then, I ask, are these additional provisions which are here contemplated? I hear it said they are within the Act. Of course they are. I appreciate the exceedingly subtle distinction between additional provisions and provisions for any matters in addition to, but what I am quite unable to undertand is this: What are these additional provisions which we are here talking about, unless they are Amendments? They are something manifestly within the scope of the Act, and an Amendment commonly takes the form of an addition. I agree that under the guise of an Amendment we cannot introduce new matters, and I appreciate that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had that in his mind. He deals with that is his proposed paragraph (b), but I am at a complete loss—and I say this quite seriously—to understand what is being dealt with in paragraph (a) which is not an Amendment already covered by Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, or is not an incidental or consequential provision already contemplated by paragraph (c). Therefore, in so far as the first part of this Amendment is concerned, in which the word "additional" comes, I would suggest that really the additional provision for matters mentioned comes to nothing more than the Amendments already provided for which can be approved by the Board of Trade without any further sanction at all.
When we come to the proposed paragraph (b), which is really the gist of the matter, what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants here is to substitute a positive approval for a negative approval. I quite follow that we had the same subject matter for discussion a week ago, and that then, with regard to the central scheme, I was authorised to accept the Amendment. That perhaps shows the disadvantage of being too reasonable, because I am bound to say that I cannot extend—I have no authority to extend—that concession to accepting any such Amendment here, and I would suggest that neither is it a matter of authority alone, because I have discussed the matter with the President of the Board of Trade. It is one thing to say you are prepared to accept a provision for positive approval where you are dealing with a central scheme, with one scheme of one body, and it is another and a wholly different thing to say you will accept the principle of positive approval where you are deal-
ing with district schemes, in which case you are concerned with a considerable number.
Many people nowadays are complaining of the great demands made upon Parliamentary time, and people are suggesting that by reason of the excessive demands made upon Parliamentary time, Parliament is finding it impossible to be the adequate machine which it ought to be. It is impossible for us to say that we can accept an Amendment that any provision of these 31 district schemes, any Amendment, or any alteration, or any matter in addition to those mentioned, cannot be introduced unless you get the positive approval of Parliament. Is it to be said there is no logical distinction between the concession we made with regard to the central scheme and our refusal of that concession in the case of the district schemes?
I am speaking from recollection, but I think I am right in saying that the Amendments, some of which were tabled in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and most of them at any rate in the names of the Members of the party opposite, have throughout borne that principle in mind, and those very Amendments have made it quite plain that, in the case of the central scheme, they wanted a positive approval, and in the case of the 21 district schemes, they were content with a negative approval. That is the position which the Government take up. It is impossible for us to say that, with regard to each of these 21 district schemes, we can have exactly the same machinery as we can for one central scheme. We consider that, by providing for the negative approval, we have provided a perfectly adequate safeguard in the case of the 21 district schemes; and, therefore, I cannot in this case accept the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We are discussing the whole of the Amendments in connection with this Clause. In regard to the small but rather complicated Amendments with which the Attorney-General has dealt, I think it is not unreasonable, having regard to the decision which the Committee has previously arrived at in reference to the power to make variations in the schemes which are strictly, within the terms of the Bill, vested in the President of the
Board of Trade, it would not be reasonable for us to press those Amendments, which I think all cover the same point, and exactly the same issue, which was decided against us in a previous decision. But when it comes to the paragraph (b), which we seek to insert, exactly the opposite is the case. Therefore, if it seems reasonable that we should refrain from asking the Committee to express an opinion contrary to that which was expressed a few days ago, it seems to us wholly unreasonable for the Attorney-General not merely to reverse a decision taken by the Committee but to reverse a principle which he himself accepted. This is not a question of a small matter of convenience; it is a very real question of principle, which the Attorney-General accepted on the last occasion.
There are two types of amendment that might be made to schemes. There are amendments which might be made which are within the scope of all the Clauses which we have passed. That is a variation within the scope of something which the Committee has already approved. Then we come to Sub-section (4), which is wholly outside that:
If … it is necessary or expedient that the district scheme should make provision for any matters in addition to or in substitution for the matters mentioned in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of this Section, the Board may lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an order.
and unless either House resolves that the Order shall not be made the Board may make such an Order. That is wholly a different matter. That, in fact, is a complete variation of this Act of Parliament. It save so in terms. It says that what it is proposed to put into the scheme is not something incidental or consequential but something additional to the powers that Parliament is now giving to the Board of Trade, or a substitution for the powers which Parliament by this Bill confers upon the Treasury and the Board of Trade. If hon. Members look through all the bureaucratic Acts of Parliament which have been passed they will not find that this House has devolved upon a Minister of the Crown the power to make an Order, which does not require a positive Resolution, which alters an Act of Parliament which this House has passed, and here we have an Act of Parliament of such importance that we are
taking the whole Committee stage of it quite rightly, upon the Floor of the House.
If the Attorney-General can find a precedent, I am sure it is a bad precedent. He said that people were becoming anxious because Parliament was getting overworked and that we must not put on Parliament the duty of considering all these Orders, because it had more important things to do. I do not know about that. I should have thought that if there was one thing that the country was really anxious about it was not that Parliament should hustle its business and be able, by delegation of its work to a Minister, to find time to pass a great many new Acts of Parliament. I should have thought that what people were really anxious about was that there should be proper Parliamentary control over Government administration. I understand that there is sitting at the present time a Royal Commission to consider this very question. That Royal Commission would not have been set up if there had not been some ground for establishing such a Royal Commission. Very strong criticism has been advanced by the Lord Chief Justice in regard to the growing tendency—we have all been guilty of it and must stand in the dock—of inviting Parliament to delegate its powers. I may have sinned in common with some of my right hon. Friends in the past, but I am certain that we never did anything like this. I have no recollection of ever having invited Parliament to give me power to alter an Act of Parliament and I am certain that what the country is interested in is that Parliament should retain a very direct control over the administrative action of the Government.
Think what this Bill is. This Bill, and the operations of the executive boards under the Bill, is going to touch the life of every single person in this country, and those who operate it are going to operate with very few principles laid down for them, except a wide charter of self-interest. This is surely a case where we should be very careful to preserve Parliamentary control. Last week we were dealing with the central scheme. The words in the Clause dealing with the central scheme were absolutely identical with the words dealing with the district scheme. I would ask the Committee to
look back at Clause 2 where we were dealing with the central scheme. In Clause 2 (4) there are these words:
If it is necessary or expedient that the central scheme should make provision for any matters in addition to or in substitution for the matters mentioned in sub-sections (2) and (3) of this Section, the Board may lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an Order, etc.
It was on that Section that the Attorney-General said that it was quite reasonable and fair that Parliament should be required to express positive assent before an Amendment of the Act was effected. To-night, he refuses to accept that principle, although the provision is exactly the same, and exactly the same matters are involved. There is no limitation as to what may be done in the district scheme "in addition to or in substitution for matters." The Attorney-General says, "We were prepared to give you this concession when we were dealing only with one scheme, but now that we are dealing with 21 schemes and not one we are not going to give it to you; we are going to keep the power in our own hands." What justification, in the name of logic or commonsense or constitutional reality, is there for doing that? Under the central scheme there is one opportunity and one opportunity only for amending the Act, but in these 21 district schemes there are 21 opportunities for amending the Act, yet the Attorney-General, with his great sense of logic, says that it was right and proper that Parliament should retain its control where one scheme was involved, but that where 21 schemes are involved giving power to amend the Act in 21 different ways, then Parliament ought to divest itself of control. I do not think that I ever heard a more illogical or, if I may respectfully say so, a less constitutional defence than that which is now put up by the Attorney-General. I sincerely hope that he will reconsider this matter. He said that he was not authorised to make such a concession. This is a very grave matter of principle, and I hope that we may have some consideration of the matter from the President of the Board of Trade.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I said that I had discussed this matter with the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I accept that assurance from the Attorney-General. Therefore, he was speaking with the full authority of the Government. This is plainly a matter which must be pressed to a Division. In dividing on the matter we are dividing in favour of a principle which the Attorney-General thought to be right and which he advised the Committee to accept a week ago. I cannot for the life of me conceive what change has taken place which should make us go back on that which seemed wise to the Committee a week ago, and which the Attorney-General advised us to do.

Amendment negatived.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 9, line 36, at the end, to add the words:
(b) If the executive board for any district make to the Board of Trade representations that, for the purpose of regulating or facilitating the production, supply, or sale of coal, or any class of coal, by owners of coal mines situated in that district, it is necessary or expedient that the district scheme should make provision for any matters in addition to or in substitution for the matters mentioned in sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section, the Board may lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an order providing that the scheme may be amended so as to provide for the matters with respect to which the representations were made, and those matters shall be specified in the draft order, and, if each House before the expiration of a period of twenty days on which that House has "at next after the draft is laid before it resolves that the order shall be made, the Board shall make an order in the terms of the draft to take effect on such date after the expiration of that period as may be specified in the order, and the scheme shall he amended accordingly in manner provided by the scheme.

Question put, "That these words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 272.

Division No. 232.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Atholl, Duchess of
Beaumont, M. W.


Albery, Irving James
Atkinson, C.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham. C.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Betterton, Sir Henry B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bird, Ernest Roy


Aske, Sir Robert
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Penny, Sir George


Boyce, H. L.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bracken, B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Purbrick, R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ramsbotham, H.


Buchan, John
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hanbury, C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, John R.


Butler, R. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Colfax, Major William Phillp
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Colville, Major D. J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Skelton, A. N.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Croom-Johnson., R. P.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerset, Thomas


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Spender-Clay. Colonel H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric
Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lymington, Viscount
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Sir F.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mac Robert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Tinne, J. A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Train, J.


England, Colonel A.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Ferguson, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Fermoy, Lord
Mond, Hon. Henry
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wells, Sydney R.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Muirhead, A. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Worthington- Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Gower, Sir Robert
O'Neill, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, Capt. Osbert



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bellamy, Albert
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Buchanan, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Benson, G.
Burgess, F. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)


Angell, Norman
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Caine, Derwent Hall-


Arnott, John
Bowen, J. W.
Cameron, A. G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cape, Thomas


Ayles, Walter
Broad, Francis Alfred
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Charieton, H. C.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bromfield, William
Chater, Daniel


Barnes, Alfred John
Bromley, J.
Church, Major A. G.


Barr, James
Brooke, W.
Clarke, J. S.


Batey, Joseph
Brothers, M.
Cluse, W. S.




Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leach, W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sanders, W. S.


Cove, William G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sandham, E.


Daggar, George
Lees, J.
Sawyer, G. F.


Dallas, George
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, Fred W.
Scurr, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sexton, James


Day, Harry
Logan, David Gilbert
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dickson, T.
Longden, F.
Shield, George William


Dukes, C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Duncan, Charles
Lowth, Thomas
Shlliaker, J. F.


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Shinwell, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sinkinson, George


Egan, W. H.
McElwee, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Freeman, Peter
Mackinder, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McKinlay, A.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith. N.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mansfield, W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gill, T. H.
March, S.
Snell, Harry


Gillett, George M.
Marcus, M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gossling, A. G.
Markham, S. F.
Sorensen, R.


Gould, F.
Marley, J.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marshall, Fred
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mathers, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Matters, L. W.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James
Strauss, G. R.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Melville, Sir James
Sullivan, J.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Messer, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Middleton, G.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mills, J. E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Milner, J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hardie, George D.
Montague, Frederick
Thurtle, Ernest


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tillett, Ben


Haycock, A. W.
Morley, Ralph
Tinker, John Joseph


Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Toole, Joseph


Hayes, John Henry
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tout, W. J.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mort, D. L.
Townend, A. E.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Moses, J. J. H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Turner, B.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Vaughan, D. J.


Herriotts, J.
Muff, G.
Viant, S. P.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Walkden, A. G.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Murnin, Hugh
Walker, J.


Hoffman, P. C.
Naylor, T. E.
Wallace, H. W.


Hollins, A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.
Watkins, F. C.


Horrabin, J. F.
Oldfield, J. R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Isaacs, George
Palin, John Henry
Wellock, Wilfred


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Paling, Wilfrid
Welsh, James (Paisley)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, E. T.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Johnston, Thomas
Perry, S. F.
West, F. R.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Whitetey, William (Blaydon)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kennedy, Thomas
Price, M. P.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kinley, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kirkwood, D.
Raynes, W. R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Knight, Holford
Richards, R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lang, Gordon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wise, E. F.


Lathan, G.
Riley, F. F (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ritson, J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W Bromwich)



Lawrence, Susan
Romeril, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B.


Lawson, John James
Rowson, Guy
Smith.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 210.

Division No. 233.]
AYES.
[10.11 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Ammon, Charles George


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Angell, Norman


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Alpass, J. H.
Arnott, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palmer, E. T.


Ayles, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hoffman, P. C.
Perry, S. F.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hopkin, Daniel
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Barr, James
Horrabin, J. F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pole, Major D. G.


Bellamy, Albert
Isaacs, George
Potts, John S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Price, M. P.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Johnston, Thomas
Rathbone, Eleanor


Benson, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Raynes, W. R.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richards, R.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Bowen, J. W.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kennedy, Thomas
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Ken worthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Romeril, H. G.


Bromfield, William
Kinley, J.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bromley, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Rowson, Guy


Brooke, W.
Knight, Holford
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brothers, M.
Lang, Gordon
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lathan, G.
Sandham, E.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Buchanan, G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Scrymgeour, E.


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Scurr, John


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sexton, James


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Lawson, John James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cameron, A. G.
Leach, W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Cape, Thomas
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shield, George William


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Charieton, H. C.
Lees, J.
Shillaker, J. F.


Chater, Daniel
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shinwell, E.


Church, Major A. G.
Lindley, Fred W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clarke, J. S.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Simmons, C. J.


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sinkinson, George


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Longden, F.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Compton, Joseph
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cove, William G.
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Dallas, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Day, Harry
McElwee, A.
Snell, Harry


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McEntee, V. L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dickson, T.
Mackinder, W.
Sorensen, R.


Dukes, C.
McKinlay, A.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Duncan, Charles
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Stephen, Campbell


Ede, James Chuter
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edmunds, J. E.
Mansfield, W.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
March, S.
Strauss, G. R.


Egan, W. H.
Marcus, M.
Sullivan, J.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Markham, S. F.
Sutton, J. E.


Freeman, Peter
Marley, J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marshall, Fred
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mathers, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon J. H. (Derby)


Gibbins, Joseph
Matters, L. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Maxton, James
Tinker, John Joseph


Gill, T. H.
Melville, Sir James
Toole, Joseph


Gillett, George M.
Messer, Fred
Tout, W. J.


Gossling, A. G.
Middleton, G.
Townend, A. E.


Gould, F.
Mills, J. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Milner, J.
Turner, B.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Vaughan, D. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Viant, S. P.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morley, Ralph
Walkden, A. G.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Walker, J.


Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallace, H. W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mort, D. L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Moses, J. J. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hardie, George D.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Watts-Morgan, Lt-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muff, G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Haycock, A. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, Hugh
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hayes, John Henry
Naylor, T. E.
West, F. R.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oldfield, J. R.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Herriotts, J.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)




Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)



Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Wise, E. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Paling.



Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'l'd)


Albery, Irving James
Ford, Sir P. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Peake, Captain Osbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Penny, Sir George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Atkinson, C.
Gower, Sir Robert
Power, Sir John Cecil


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Purbrick, R.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsbotham, H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beaumont, M. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Remer, John R.


Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Revnolds, Col. Sir James


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hammersley, S. S.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Boyce, H. L.
Hanbury, C.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bracken, B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hartington, Marquess of
Salmon, Major I.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l d'., Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Buchan, John
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Savery, S. S.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Butler, R. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Iveagh, Countess of
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerset, Thomas


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Christie, J. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Thomson, Sir F.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tinne, J. A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Long, Major Eric
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lymington, Viscount
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Train, J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macquisten, F. A.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Meller, R. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


England, Colonel A.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ferguson, Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.



Fermoy, Lord
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Sir Victor Warrender.

CLAUSE 4.—(Committees of Investigation.)

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I call is the first standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister). There are several Amendments hanging together, and I think the first one will settle them all.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 10, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) (a) The Lord Chief Justice shall appoint commissioners (hereinafter referred to as judicial commissioners), consisting of a chairman, who shall be a judge of the supreme court, a chartered or incorporated accountant, and a person having industrial and commercial experience, for the purpose of hearing and deciding such matters as may be submitted to them under this section.
(b) The meetings and procedure of the judicial commissioners shall be regulated in accordance with rules framed by the chairman for the purpose.
(6) (a) The judicial commissioners shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof, on the occasion of any matter coming before them under this section in respect of—

(i) discovery and production to the judicial commissioners of documents and for the purposes thereof the judicial commissioners shall have power to appoint and employ accountants and other experts to make such investigations and reports as they shall order; and
(ii) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise; and
(iii) compelling the production of documents; and
(iv) punishing persons guilty of contempt; and a summons signed by one of the judicial commissioners may be substituted for and equivalent to any formal process capable of being issued in any action for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of any documents.
(b) The judicial commissioners may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number.
I take it that it is proposed that we shall have a general discussion on this Amendment and then have one Division—unless the President of the Board of Trade accepts it, and I hope he may, because it is an Amendment of great liberality and reasonableness. It is a matter of happy augury for us all that the Naval Conferences has so far advanced to success as to enable some of our Friends to join us in the Lobby. It is very cheering
news that has come to us during the dinner hour. I hope they may feel emboldened to support this Amendment also.
The object of this Amendment is to set up an authoritative judicial commission. We have now passed, on our downward course, this "charter of oppression" which the right hon. Gentleman has put upon us. We now have the coalowners free from all restrictions and conditions to settle the price of coal which they think they are best able to extract from the consumer, and there remains to us but one opportunity of giving the consumer, in the last resort, some potent and authoritative court of appeal to which he may take his grievances. All that the right hon. Gentleman proposes is that the consumer may go to a committee of investigation, where the lion and the lamb will lie down together. The coalowners and the miners will form one side of that tribunal—and I have no doubt they will agree very well. There will also be representatives of the consumers—or the consumed, as I think they might very properly be termed; and there will be an independent chairman. But that committee is to have no power.
It is only to investigate, to discuss, to express an opinion. Very likely it will express three opinions. The coalowners and the miners will certainly express one opinion; I should not be surprised if the consumers — or consumed — expressed another; and it may well be that the independent chairman will express a third. But that division of opinion does not really matter very much, because the committee cannot do anything; it can only report to the President of the Board of Trade. Oh, no, it does something else first; it approaches the parties concerned and tries to see what it can do by using its good offices with them. Having failed in those good offices, the committee, in three sets, then approaches the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade tries its hand, and it approaches the parties, and if it does not succeed, with the parties—and having given them carte blanche to do what they like, I do not suppose it will be very successful—it may then itself have an investigation and send for papers and documents.
I wonder how long this is going to take? It has taken some time for the Bill to
go through Committee, but that is nothing to the time which will be occupied in this process. In November a consumer will complain of the price, and I suppose by about the following June, when prices generally have fallen, we may possibly get some conclusion from the Board of Trade. Six months will elapse and nothing will be done. This Amendment offers to the unhappy consumer a judicial tribunal to which he can apply. I can cite very good precedents for the setting up of such a tribunal. The Railway and Canal Commission and the Railway Rates Tribunal have been set up to deal with railway rates and the complaints of traders. Although in the case of railway rates and railway transport the railway companies are governed by Act of Parliament, the traders are given a judicial court of appeal as against the railway companies, and how much more important it is that some real right of appeal should be given to the consumers under this Bill where almost a free hand is allowed to the coalowners.
It is no good telling us that the President of the Board of Trade has power to deal with these matters, because they are questions that cannot be dealt with effectively unless the tribunal has power to make an order. If a district committee found that the public were suffering, they would be able to say that the public shall not suffer any more and some alteration would be made. There should be an authoritative judicial court of appeal, and I propose by this Amendment that we should establish such a court. Such a tribunal should include a judge or an experienced barrister, a capable accountant and a man with commercial experience. That is exactly what is done in the case of the Railway and Canal Commission, and I think we should establish such a body as that which I am proposing, giving it power to hear appeals from the decisions of the local investigation committees. The tribunal, I suggest, should have power to deal in the first instance with any serious difference which arises between the traders and the coalowners covering the whole country. Such a question should not be made the sport of 21 different arbitration tribunals, and it ought to come before a proper tribunal and be settled according to principles which that tribunal would lay down.
The tribunal I propose should be given power to alter schemes which militate against the public interest, and I do not see any point in an inquiry unless that can be done. I know that the Board of Trade have power to alter these schemes, and if they are found to be working against the public interest, then I think this judicial tribunal should have at least as much authority in such matters as that which is possessed by the President of the Board of Trade. If those committees recommend some proposal outside the scope of the Act they ought to come to Parliament. This is the last opportunity we shall have of giving the consumer any protection under this Bill, and there is every precedent for doing what I have put forward. The consumers ought to have an authoritative judicial tribunal before which their cases can be tried.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: My right hon. Friend has thrown great enthusiasm into his task of promoting the cause of judicial commissioners in what I understand is to be almost the last of these efforts during the Committee stage of the Bill. I think I can summarise the matter quite simply by saying that the choice before the Committee is between the establishment of elaborate machinery of this kind, and the machinery for safeguarding consumers and owners in the district schemes which is provided partly in the Bill, and is improved by the new Clause which the Government have on the Paper. As regards the functions under any district scheme, I think that my right hon. Friend is quite wrong in trying to establish any case, either on the basis of the Railway and Canal Commission or on the basis of the Railway Rates Tribunal. To take the latter as an illustration, that was a tribunal set up under the Railways Act, 1921, to perform a specific duty, namely, to fix the charges of railway companies in this country to give them the standard revenue of 1913, together with certain allowances for capital expenditure and the rest, while that remained un-remunerative. In other words, it was a specific duty under an Act of Parliament, and was not a problem relating to an industry like the coal industry. Railways had come into four great amalgamations or trusts, and they were given that form of guarantee, if I may so describe it. But there is no underlying guarantee of that kind in the case of the coal industry,
because it operates, not only within this country, but outside, and is not in a semi-sheltered position as the railways are. I think that the Committee should not worry, if I may say so, at this late hour, with comparisons with the Railway and Canal Commission or the Railway Rates Tribunal.
The short question is whether this machinery which my right hon. Friend proposes is preferable to the machinery in the Bill. Quite shortly, what does the Bill provide? As regards the district schemes, on any grievance which may be felt by an individual owner regarding the quota, the standard tonnage, the minimum price, or whatever the conditions may be, he has a right to go to the executive body of his fellow-owners, and he is a member of that body or is represented on it. Then, if he is not satisfied, he has a right of immediate appeal to an independent arbitrator, a competent person, whose decision for all practical purposes will be final and binding in a matter of this kind; and, for all that I know, he may have certain rights in law as well, though I cannot pronounce on that. That is the position in regard to the operation of the scheme within the district, and it gives a plain protection, so far as the owner is concerned, in the matters which affect him when he becomes a party to or is brought into this district organisation.
But probably the right hon. Gentleman has much more in mind the position of the consumer. All along we have sought to protect the consumers' interests, and, in so far as the Bill was originally inconsistent with that, we have sought to improve it. The district committees of investigation, though small in number, will be representative and competent to deal with any difficulty that arises in the functions or operations of a district scheme. I should hope that no large national question would arise and that this machinery would be quite sufficient for its purpose. Any industry or railway company, or any individual in the locality, who considers that the price of coal is too high, and that it has been raised by the operation of the district scheme, may go to the committee, which will take up the case and, if they are satisfied that there is an abuse, call upon the executive body to have it put right, or it can go to arbitration, and, if a remedy
is not found, the scheme may continue on a non-statutory basis, but only if the Board of Trade approves and only if the scheme is broadly in keeping with the provisions of the central machinery; in other words, in my judgment, if this particular difficulty is not of major or commanding importance. If it falls into the latter category, the Board of Trade has power to withdraw the statutory basis of the scheme and, beyond that, it may put forward a scheme of its own, or it may vary the constitution and the personnel of the district scheme. That is far more economical than the judge and judicial commissioners which the right hon. Gentleman, in an access of bureaucratic enthusiasm, proposes to drive into this well-meaning legislation.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman knows what road is paved with good intentions.

Mr. GRAHAM: The safeguards in the Bill are complete, with the long Clause which is to be moved later, and on those grounds I feel that this elaborate machinery is not required. With very great regret, in the presence of such universal good will, I am compelled to reject the Amendment.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I expressed my surprise earlier in the day that the Government should have refused to accept an Amendment which seemed to me to be consequential upon the decision arrived at last week, but I should have been exceedingly surprised if they had accepted the Amendment that is now before the Committee. It is one which has never had any support from these benches and is superfluous in view of the concessions which have already been made by the Government to the representations we made on the Second Reading. We then urged that the powers of control under this Clause in the interests of the consumer were wholly inadequate, and we strongly represented that the elaborate schemes in the Bill as it came before us were not a sufficient protection to the interests of the consumer. Among the four questions that were put on the Second Reading from these benches was the question whether the Government would make proposals in Committee for securing that the representations of the consumers should be adequately and quickly considered, and if they were held
to be well founded, should be given effect to. That the Government have done, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) denouncing the Bill as it stood, entirely ignored the new Sub-sections which stand upon the Paper and which we shall reach in a few minutes. Those Sub-sections provide that, where representation is made that the scheme is likely to have an effect contrary to the public interest—that is the unfair and undue raising of prices—the matter shall be considered by these committees of investigation, including representatives of the consumers, and, if they think the representations are well founded, they may take action accordingly. If the mine-owners, who have the entire control of the committees under the Act, do not observe those recommendations, the matter can at once be put to the judgment of an independent arbitrator.
There is the further provision, to which the President of the Board of Trade did not draw attention in his remarks just now, that, where the arbitrator gives an award, it shall be the duty of the committees of mineowners to comply therewith. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon said, that there was no control of any sort, and that mineowners were left entirely free and independent to work their wicked will upon the consumers, is no longer the case. Machinery has been put into the framework of this Bill—I do not say anything at this stage on that—to meet the particular claim that was made. In these circumstances, the Amendment with regard to judicial commissioners is wholly unnecessary. Either these commissioners will have to deal with points of law, in which case they are really superseding the Courts of Law—and it is far better that such matters should be dealt with by the Courts—or else they will be dealing with matters which can be far better and more simply dealt with by the arbitrators who are now proposed under the provisions of the Bill. Under these circumstances, I trust that this Amendment will not be pressed, but if it is we cannot support it.

Mr. REID: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade one question. Has he ever had any personal experience of arbitration, and has he any idea how long it takes, and how much it costs?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I support this Amendment. I think that it is a great improvement on the Clauses. It is a very difficult thing for any of us to take the responsibility which will be required to be taken in this matter. You want a semi-judicial body of this description. There may be vast sums at stake in the price of coal, far greater than are decided in the Courts of Law in any one year. There may be millions at stake in this matter. This is a far greater improvement on the Courts, and it will secure, at all events, that the commissioners shall be men of the highest possible standard. There is no guarantee of that in the subsequent Clauses. How do we know what the Board of Trade may be in the future? We may have a Board of Trade which is being dictated to from behind by miners, or mine-owners, or miners' representatives, just as we have a Government at the present time who are being dictated to by miners' representatives. The whole Bill is the result of what you may call a syndicalist alliance between miners and mineowners, and the wretched consumer is to be victimised because he is not organised. He will have to pay more and more under the Bill for his coal; he ought to have the protection of a semi-judicial tribunal.

Sir BASIL PETO: I have listened to this Debate hoping to hear from one side or the other something about what is really meant by the word "consumer." The whole of the cumbrous machinery proposed by the Bill seems to be designed possibly to meet the needs of great consumers of coal like railway companies or the whole gas industries of the country combined. They might be able to use this kind of machinery. To them the judicial body proposed by the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) might possibly be more effective, and I think it is an improvement on the proposal in the Bill. But can anyone imagine the consumer who I have in mind, the ordinary humble consumer of coal who buys by the hundredweight, being able to get any redress either by the machinery of the Bill or the Amendment that has been moved. I have not heard a single word to show that the Government have done anything to deal with the complaints of any unjust increase of price which might be made by this combination of mineowners and workers, or have dealt
in any effective way with the real consumers of coal in this country, the small consumers, humble people, to whom this is a vital matter.
I cannot say that I regard the judicial tribunal suggested by my right hon. Friend as being able really to deal with the case at all. There is no combination of these humble consumers. They have no trade union behind them or federation to speak for them. They have no one. The Government have no mercy upon them; and the Liberals have run away. They have no friends in this House and, therefore, I desire to say one word on their behalf. Whether we pass the proposal of the Government as it is or with the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, the fact remains that the humble consumers of coal are going to have the price increased against them; they are going to be ground down by a combination of mineowners and miners.

Major LLEWELLIN: There is one point to which I desire to call attention. Under the Clause to be submitted to the Committee only two parties are to be represented before the arbitrator. They are the investigating committee and the body charged with the duty of administering the schemes. There is no opportunity at all for the ordinary consumer of coal to be represented before that arbitrator, and that is one of the reasons why I so much prefer the Clause that has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) because it does seem important that when you are giving these tremendous powers of price-fixing you ought to ensure that the consumers of coal throughout the

country have some tribunal before which they can appear and have their casa heard. Taking the case before the Board of Trade is not the same tiling at all. As the learned Attorney-General will know, it has often been said that it is almost as important that justice should appear to be done as that it should be done, and the point of having a tribunal before which the consumers or their representatives can appear, rather than before the Board of Trade, is that they know then that their case has been heard. It is not just a matter of writing a letter to the Government Department and getting a very polite, formal reply within a day or two, and then a reply three weeks or so later saying that the matter has been disposed of. Really, it is most important that every consumer should be able in some way, through his organisation, perhaps, to appear before a person whom he will see and know that his case is heard. I should really have thought that, at any rate, at this hour of the evening, this proposal would have got support from the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members below the Gangway, because we have now seen that
Hearts are bold again and arms are strong.
It seems to me, from the way in which Members of the Liberal party have gone this way and that on this proposal—if I may quote one more line from the same hymn—that
Soon, soon to ancient warriors comes their rest.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 285.

Division No. 234.]
AYES.
[10.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Albery, Irving James
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Chapman, Sir S.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Boyce, H. L.
Christie, J. A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Bracken, B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Colfox, Major William Philip


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Colville, Major D. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Buchan, John
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Butler, R. A.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Carver, Major W. H.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Beaumont, M. W.
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bird, Ernest Roy
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Salmon, Major I.


Elliot, Major Writer E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Ferguson, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Savery, S. S.


Fermoy, Lord
Long, Major Eric
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Fielden, E. B.
Lymington, Viscount
Skelton, A. N.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Smithers, Waldron


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mac Robert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Somerset, Thomas


Ganzoni, Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gault, Lieut.- Col. Andrew Hamilton
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East);


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Gower, Sir Robert
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)'


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Meller, R. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mond, Hon. Henry
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Thomson, Sir F.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Tinne, J. A.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Train, J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Muirhead, A. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Hanbury, C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Neill, Sir H.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Haslam, Henry C.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wells, Sydney R.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Purbrick, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hurd, Percy A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Womersley, W. J.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Iveagh, Countess of
Remer, John R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.



Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Sir George Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromley, J.
Dickson, T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brooke, W.
Dukes, C.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Brothers, M.
Duncan, Charles


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Ede, James Chuter


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edmunds, J. E.


Alpass, J. H.
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Ammon, Charles George
Buchanan, G.
Egan, W. H.


Angell, Norman
Burgess, F. G.
Elmley, Viscount


Arnott, John
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
England, Colonel A.


Aske, Sir Robert
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Foot, Isaac


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Ayles, Walter
Calne, Derwent Hall-
Freeman, Peter


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cameron, A. G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton).


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Cape, Thomas
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Barnes, Alfred John
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gibbins, Joseph


Barr, James
Charieton, H. C.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley).


Batey, Joseph
Chater, Daniel
Gill, T. H.


Bellamy, Albert
Church, Major A. G.
Gillett, George M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Clarke, J. S.
Glassey, A. E.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cluse, W. S.
Gossling, A. G.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gould, F.


Benson, G.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Compton, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cove, William G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Daggar, George
Groves, Thomas E.


Bowen, J. W.
Dallas, George
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Day, Harry
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Bromfield, William
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)




Hardie, George D.
Markham, S. F.
Shield, George William


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marley, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Haycock, A. W.
Marshall, Fred
Shillaker, J. F.


Hayday, Arthur
Mathers, George
Shinwell, E.


Hayes, John Henry
Matters, L. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Maxton, James
Simmons, C. J.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Melville, Sir James
Sinkinson, George


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Messer, Fred
Sitch, Charles H.


Herriotts, J.
Middleton, G.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mills, J. E.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hirst, W. (Bradlord, South)
Milner, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hoffman, P. C.
Montague, Frederick
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Hollins, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hopkin, Daniel
Morley, Ralph
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Horrabin, J. F.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Snell, Harry


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mort, D. L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Isaacs, George
Moses, J. J. H.
Sorensen, R.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Stamford, Thomas W.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Stephen, Campbell


Johnston, Thomas
Muff, G.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Murnin, Hugh
Strauss, G. R.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Sullivan, J.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Sutton, J. E.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Kelly, W. T.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Kennedy, Thomas
Oldfield, J. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Thurtle, Ernest


Kinley, J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Tinker, John Joseph


Kirkwood, D.
Palin, John Henry
Toole, Joseph


Knight, Holford
Paling, Wilfrid
Tout, W. J.


Lang, Gordon
Palmer, E. T.
Townend, A. E.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Lathan, G.
Perry, S. F.
Turner, B.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Pethick, Lawrence, F. W.
Vaughan, D. J.


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Viant, S. P.


Lawrence, Susan
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Walkden, A. G.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Pole, Major D. G.
Walker, J.


Lawson, John James
Potts, John S.
Wallace, H. W.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Price, M. P.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Leach, W.
Pybus, Percy John
Watkins, F. C.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lees, J.
Raynes, W. R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Richards, R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lindley, Fred W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
West, F. R.


Logan, David Gilbert
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Longbottom, A. W.
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Longden, F.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Romeril, H. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lowth, Thomas
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lunn, William
Rowson, Guy
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


McElwee, A.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


McEntee, V. L.
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


McKinlay, A.
Sandham, E.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sawyer, G. F.
Wise, E. F.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Scurr, John
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sexton, James
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Mansfield, W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



March, S.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Marcus, M.
Sherwood, G. H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.


Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, in page 11, line 9, to leave out from the word "scheme" to the word "is" in line 10.
In moving this Amendment, I will refer also to my subsequent Amendment—in line 22, after the word "them," to insert the words "under this Sub-section," and also to the proposed new Sub-sections (8), (9) and (10) which stands in my name. The effect of leaving out the words
or any act or omission of any persons in respect of their functions under the scheme.
is to draw a distinction as to the work of the investigation committee relating to the structure of a scheme. This is intended to deal with the point that there was no adequate provision for consumers. The Government have now defined the structure of the Bill, and in the Clause on the following page we protect the consumer.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We think that the provisions which the right hon. Gentleman has inserted in the interests of the consumer are really so much camouflage. His original provision was useless, and it is not added to by the words which he now proposes, but we do not intend to divide.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 11, line 22, after the word "them," insert the words "under this Sub-section."

In page 12, line 11, at the end, add the words:
(8) If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any act or omission of any persons in respect of their functions under the scheme is having or is likely to have an effect contrary to the public interests, it shall be the duty of the committee to make representations with respect thereto to the persons having power under the scheme to rectify the matter, and if, upon such representations being made, the matter is not dealt with to the satisfaction of the committee, the committee may refer the matter to a single independent arbitrator to be appointed by agreement between the committee and the body charged with the duty of administering the scheme, or, in default of agreement, by the Board of Trade, and the persons having power under the scheme to give effect to the decision shall comply therewith and exercise their functions under the scheme in conformity with the decision.
(9) A committee of investigation upon referring any matter to arbitration in accordance with the last foregoing sub-section, shall make a report thereon to the Board of Trade, and shall also report to the Board the arbitrator's decision and what steps have been taken to comply therewith, and the Board shall have power to make in the scheme such amendments (if any) as they think necessary for securing that the scheme will be administered in conformity with the decision, and in particular may by such amendments alter the composition of the body charged with the administration of the scheme as if the scheme had been made by the Board.
(10) The Board of Trade shall make regulations for the conduct of references to arbitration under this section, and such regulations shall make provision as to the persons by whom the remuneration of the arbitrator is to be defrayed, and all such regulations shall be laid before Parliament, and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply with respect to any arbitration under this section except in so far as they may be applied by the said regulations."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Clauses 5 (Information to be furnished to Board of Trade), 6 (Report to be laid before Parliament), 7 (Information obtained under Act not to be disclosed), and 8 (Offences and penalties) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration of Part I.)

Part I of this Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We must be grateful for small mercies. We do not propose to divide on this new Clause.

Sir H. SAMUEL: In reference to the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has moved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I take it that this demonstration on the part of hon. Members above the Gangway is an acknowledgement of the fact that the new Clause is being inserted in accordance with a request put forward from these Benches on the Second Reading, and that hon. Members are taking this opportunity of expressing their gratitude. I should like to express my own gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for this Clause and it is to be hoped that during the period of two or three years that will elapse before these schemes come to an end, the amalgamation provisions will have time to take full effect. I trust that those provisions will be accepted by hon. Members with equal enthusiasm.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Effect of schemes on contracts.)

(1) A contract for the sale or supply of coal, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, shall not be void or unenforceable as between the parties by reason that it cannot be performed without contravening the provisions of a scheme in force under Part I of this Act.

(2) Where the output or disposal of a coal mine exceeds during any period the quota
of that mine for that period, the owner of the mine shall not be liable to any penalty under any district scheme, nor shall any deduction be made from the quota of the mine for any subsequent period, in respect of the excess, if it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty or make the deduction or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator—

(a) that the excess was solely occasioned by the performance of contracts made before the eleventh day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine;
(b) that the excess was reasonably necessary for the performance of those contracts; and
(c) that, having regard to the provisions of the central scheme, the imposition of the penalty or the making of the deduction, as the case may be, can, without substantial injury to the interests of the owners of other coal mines in the district, be dispensed with.

(3) The owner of a coal mine shall not be liable to any penalty under any district scheme by reason of the fact that he has, in pursuance of any contract, sold or supplied coal at a price below the minimum price determined in respect of that coal under the scheme at the time of the sale or supply, unless the price at which the coal was contracted to be sold or supplied was lower than the minimum price determined in respect thereof under the scheme at the time when the contract was made, or, where no minimum price had then been determined in respect of the coal, unless it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty, or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator, that the quantity of coal contracted to be sold or supplied is greater, or the period over which the coal was contracted to be sold or supplied is longer than it would have been if no party to the contract had anticipated that the price would be regulated under the scheme.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with the effect of schemes on contracts. It will be observed that the first part of the Clause provides that, as between two contracting parties, nothing in this Bill is to be treated as rendering a contract void or unenforceable. A contract remains entirely unaffected by any of the provisions of the Bill. Then we have to consider the effect of schemes not as between two contracting parties, but, as between the coalowner and the executive board. Sub-section (2) of the Clause deals with the question of excess of output. There may be, in respect of any given period, an excess of
output for disposal, and it is manifest that, if one coalowner in a district exceeds his output, it may have an adverse effect upon other coalowners in the district. Consequently, it is only fair that, subject to the precautions which we have taken here, if anybody does exceed his output, the result of so doing will fall upon him rather than upon his brother coalowners who have not exceeded their output. The Clause provides, however, that no penalties or deductions are to be made, in respect of a coalowner who has exceeded his output, if it is adjudged that the excess was occasioned solely by the performance of contracts made before the 11th December, 1929, the date of the introduction of the Bill, that the excess was reasonably necessary for the performance of those contracts, and that having regard to the provisions of the central scheme, the imposition of the penalty, or the making of the deduction can, without substantial injury to the interests of other coal mines in the district, be dispensed with.
Then, in the last part of the Clause, we deal with the question of price. A coalowner in any particular period may fix a price. That price may be altered when delivery comes to be made. He may find himself, although the price is fixed at a time when there was no price fixing scheme in operation, in a difficulty by reason of the fact that when delivery comes, the price fixed may be altered. So the Clause makes it plain that all the owner may have regard to is the price that existed when the contract was made; and if he has fixed his price in accordance with the price fixed at the time the contract was made, he is not under penalty or disability by reason of the fact that there has been an alteration in the present date of delivery.
We have still to provide for the case of the price being fixed at the present time, there being no price fixing machinery in operation. This proposed Clause deals with it in this way. In a case such as this, the price having been fixed at the present time, the coalowner is again to be under no sort of penalty or disability,
unless it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty, or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator, that the quantity of coal contracted to be sold or supplied is greater, or the period over which the coal was con-
tracted to be sold or supplied is longer than it would have been if no party to the contract had anticipated that the price would be regulated under the scheme.
What we have endeavoured to do, in regard to the ordinary commercial bargains, is to protect the coalowner absolutely; but in regard to the coalowners who, seeing the Bill coming, have taken the advantage to enter into contracts which, in the ordinary course of commerce they would not have entered into, we have provided that, if it is adjudged—and only if it is adjudged—that they had acted in that way, they may become liable to the penalties provided.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: We ought to know a little more about this Clause. I agree with the Attorney-General's interpretation of the Clause, but the Committee ought to understand a little more clearly its implications. I ask the Attorney-General to correct me if I am wrong. First of all, one can offend against Part I of the Bill either by selling below the minimum price or selling more than the quota. With regard to the minimum price, I have little to say about Subsection (3), which seems to me to deal with the difficulties which may arise. But with regard to the quota, apparently it is necessary, in order that a man, who in performance of a contract has to sell more than his quota, may be exempt, that the contract must have been made before 11th December last year. That is one of the conditions for his escaping a penalty.
Supposing that in the latter days of December a man, who has been accustomed to sell 100 per cent. of his output to some regular customers, knowing that this Bill has been introduced, but being in complete ignorance as to what his quota will be, either sells 100 per cent. of his output, or sells a certain percentage, say 80, which happens to turn out larger than the quota allotted to him, the contract is made after 11th December but shortly afterwards, and at a time when he could not possibly know what the quota is. He will then, as I understand it, be liable to a penalty. He does not come within the paragraphs, the first of which is that the excess was solely occasioned by the contract made before 11th December. So apparently he will be liable to a penalty. On the other hand, he cannot escape the liability which
he has contracted to his buyer. The contract does not become void and unenforceable, because of the fact that under this law it has become unlawful for him to produce that amount of coal. It is a hard position for a man to be put into retrospectively in regard to a perfectly proper transaction entered into in the ordinary course of business within a few days of the time when this Bill was introduced and when he could not possibly know what his quota was to be. It is a hard thing for a man who has made a bad shot at his quota to be, apparently, saddled with a penalty, while at the same time he cannot escape under the ordinary law the obligations of his contract.
I want the Attorney-General to consider this. Supposing that a coal owner had intelligently anticipated the form which this Bill was to take, and knew that a quota was to be imposed upon him, and that in making his forward contracts in December he put in a clause to the effect that in the event of legislation being passed curtailing his production the contract should be avoided, or avoided in proportion. I ask the Attorney-General whether, under the Clause as drafted, the coalowner would not still in spite of having put the clause in the contract, be liable to his buyer for the complete fulfilment of his contract; because this Clause as it stands makes no reference to any contrary provision in the contract. The Statute, as it will read, will say the contract shall not be void and unenforceable by reason of the quota Clauses and I suggest that the Statute would prevail and the clause in the contract would not. As the Statute says, the contract is not to be void and unenforceable, he would not be able to plead a clause in the contract saying that it should be avoided. This may be a mere matter of words, but I suggest that the point ought to be considered. The Attorney-General has told us quite truly, that this contract is not to be void and unenforceable, although the law has made it illegal to perform it, because that is the plain English. A man who, after the 11th December, did make a forward contract exactly as he had done in past years, for a quantity of coal no greater than he had delivered in the past, but which turned out to be larger than his quota will, retrospectively, have been doing an illegal thing, and yet he is to be liable
to his buyer. I want to know why the Clause takes the form that it does. I am going to call the attention of the Committee to the original form in which this proposed Clause was printed, and to ask what is the reason for the change. I have before me the Blue Order Paper and the White Order Paper for 11th March. In the White Order Paper the Clause reads as it now stands, but on the Blue Order Paper for that date it reads as follows:
Mr. William Graham to move the following Clause:
(1) A contract for the sale and supply of coal, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, shall be void and unenforceable as between the parties if it cannot be performed without contravening the provisions of a scheme in force under Part 1 of this Act.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Attorney-General will deal with the legal point, but I should like to explain the reason for this variation in the Clause. An hon. Member in another part of the House accidentally put down a Government Clause, and that was printed for a day or two until the correction was made. That is the explanation, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept it.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I want to ask one question. I will assume that the Bill is law, a district scheme is in force, and the price is fixed for a certain grade or quality of coal. There is a provision that no contract shall be made for a period of 12 months. Suppose that a seller of coal sells coal for three years at the price fixed, ignoring the regulation as to the period? I want to know what the position would be? Would that man be liable for penalties for selling contrary to the price should the price be changed after the period had elapsed, and when the regulation said that no contract should be made for a larger period? That is a matter of great importance, because there is a great temptation to make long contracts in order to get orders on the order book.

Mr. REID: Sub-section (1) of this new Clause provides for the sale or supply of coal, and Sub-section (2) deals with the case of a man who made a contract before the 11th day of December, 1929. If it is shown that a man before the Bill was heard of made an agreement in the
ordinary course of his business, in pursuance of his legal rights, he has to show that the excess was reasonably necessary for the performance of that contract. Why should the unfortunate man who has acted in accordance with his legal rights, who did not try to anticipate any contract, who has done nothing whatsoever except what he was legally entitled to do in the ordinary course of his business, be asked, when he comes to carry out his contract, to prove that
Having regard to the provisions of the central scheme"—
which he has never heard of—
the imposition of the penalty or the making of the deduction, as the case may be, can, without substantial injury to the interests of other coal mines in the district, be dispensed with.
That is a piece of absolute tyranny. If he has fulfilled the conditions of paragraphs (a) and (b), he has done everything that an honourable man should be asked to do, or that an honourable man should ask him to do.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask what will happen where miners have a contract or agreement in regard to their wages that they shall have coal at a given rate under their wage conditions? There is also the case in which royalty owners have an agreement under which they get a certain amount of coal in lieu of royalties. How do they come in under this particular Sub-section? If the Government cannot answer these questions, no doubt, if they had a consultation with certain other powers below the Gangway, they would be able to give me an answer.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) pointed out the possibility of there being very hard cases, and I quite agree, but I would remind him of the old saying that hard cases are apt to make bad law. He will observe that that must be so inevitably, and for this reason. After all, unless you have some provision such as we have here, the hardest case will be that of the group of coalowners who represent the coalowners in a district governed by the scheme, who otherwise would find that their output was restricted by the fact that one of their fortunate members had entered into contracts under which he was entitled to increase his output, and, as the burden of that would otherwise fall on the other
coalowners, it is thought to be only fair that, in the circumstances provided in the Clause, the coalowner who has entered into contracts after the 11th December, should, under these safeguards, be liable to what is called a penalty, but which is really more in the nature of a contribution to his brother coalowners who otherwise would suffer. That also answers the question of the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid), who thought it very hard that, when a man had proved (a) and (b), he should also have to prove (c). The penalty is in the nature of a contribution, and surely it would be exceedingly hard if the burden were to fall upon the other coalowners and not on this one. The scheme provides that when he pays what is called a penalty, but which is really a contribution, it falls into the common pool, and the loss or profit is shared to that extent, not only by him, but by the others also.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: Would it not be possible to make the way a little easier for the coalowner by substituting for the 11th December, when he could not possibly know anything of the matter in practice, the date of the passing of the Act?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid that would be impossible. These schemes have been discussed for a long time, and, if we were to accept the date of the passing of the Act, it might render the whole thing nugatory and it would break down.

Mr. REID: Surely it is retrospective legislation. I pointed out that a man has made a contract in the exercise of his legal rights, with no knowledge of the introduction of this Bill.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: Of course, it is retrospective legislation in the sense that it had not been passed, but there was intelligent anticipation that it would be passed. Unless you have some such provision as this, you knock the bottom out of the scheme. With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir S. Roberts), under the Clause as it stands, so long as the coalowner supplies at a price in accordance with the price as it existed at the date of the contract for sale, he is not liable to any penalty. The remedy would be some provision in the
scheme. If you had a provision in the scheme against contracts to any extent, let us say a longer period than 12 months, I could well understand that a coalowner who sold over a period of two years might find himself liable to a penalty, not because he sold at a wrong price, but because he fixed the contract for a longer period than the period allowed. Therefore, we have to look to the scheme for that and not to the Clause. Another hon. Member asked me several questions which seemed to relate to contracts between mine owners and royalty owners. I have previously pointed out that so far as contracts between two contracting parties are concerned, they are left intact.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I have in my mind details of a number of contracts made mostly in the latter part of December, not in anticipation of any legislation such as this. In the ordinary course of business for the coming year, many contracts have been made. I am assured by the Attorney-General that, as far as the two contracting parties are concerned, it means that a contract can be fulfilled, though it has been made before 11th December. The people I represent have great concern about the matter. They have submitted their case to an eminent legal authority, and he said that in his opinion a contract made, even with this Clause in the Bill, which is rendered illegal by a further Clause in the Bill, cannot be enforced in law, and cannot be regarded as a binding contract. If it is so, we are going to be in a very awkward position. If you have made a contract which cannot be enforced at law, it is not much use to either party. As far as the date 11th December is concerned, why has it been specially selected? In the original draft we understood that contracts that were made would be rendered null and void by the passing of the Act. Therefore, I do not think that it can be said that people have made contracts because of this Bill being introduced. I hope that we shall be given an assurance as to whether these contracts will be legally enforceable. If they are, then the fears and difficulties of these consumers will have largely passed away, but, if they are not, they will not be in a very favourable position under this Clause. I should like to know why the date of 11th December
has been selected. Many contracts for the coining year are made towards the end of December.

Sir S. ROBERTS: I thank the learned Attorney-General very much for the answer which he has given to me. This is a matter of very great importance, and I would respectfully ask him to be good enough to look into the matter again very carefully before the Report stage? As far as I can see from his answer, he throws us back on to Clause 8, which imposes a penalty of £100, and a further fine of £20 a day if the offence continues. I think that it is difficult to see how in this case it could be a continuing offence. You might deliver once a week and easily pay £20, if you had only to pay that sum once a week. I think that this is a point which should be looked into.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I put one point which, I think, may clarify the issue? I think that on such a Clause as this we might have been given the benefit of the views of the Liberal party. It is not one of the Clauses in which they are interested, bad as it is. The learned Attorney-General has been asked to justify the date of the 11th December. In his first speech, he said that it was put in, because it was the date of the introduction of the Bill. My hon. Friend asked why it should not have been the date of the passing of the Act? The learned Attorney-General said that anybody ought to have had sufficient intelligent anticipation to know that the Bill would become an Act of Parliament,

and that, therefore, the date of the introduction of the Bill was adequate. I want to know how in the world anybody could possibly have had such an intelligent anticipation, considering that it was only yesterday, as far as we know, that the Liberal party decided that the Bill should become an Act. Really, to put the onus upon unfortunate coal-owners up and down the country to foresee from December what was going to be the attitude of the versatile members of the Liberal party is asking too much either of coalowners or of anybody else. I would suggest that an alternative date might be put in; the date when this new Clause was put upon the Paper, or, if they like it better, the 19th March, the decisive date when the Liberal party decided to help.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will certainly look into the point to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) has called attention, and I express my thanks to him. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), I think I can reassure him that trawler owners need be under no misapprehension at all about the matter. As far as they are concerned as contracting parties, their contracts are absolutely untouched.

Motion made, and Question put "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 147.

Division No. 235.]
AYES.
[11.45 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Day, Harry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bowen, J. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dickson, T.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dukes, C.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bromfield, William
Duncan, Charles


Alpass, J. H.
Bromley, J.
Ede, James Chuter


Ammon, Charles George
Brooke, W.
Edmunds, J. E.


Angell, Norman
Brothers, M.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Arnott, John
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Aske, Sir Robert
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Egan, W. H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, G.
Elmley, Viscount


Ayles, Walter
Burgess, F. G.
Foot, Isaac


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Barnes, Alfred John
Cameron, A. G.
Freeman, Peter


Barr, James
Cape, Thomas
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Batey, Joseph
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Bellamy, Albert
Charieton, H. C.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Chater, Daniel
Gibbins, Joseph


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cluse, W. S.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mostley)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gill, T. H.


Benson, G.
Daggar, George
Gillett, George M.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Dallas, George
Glassey, A. E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Dalton, Hugh
Gossling, A. G.


Gould, F.
McElwee, A.
Scurr, John


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, V. L.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McKinlay, A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sherwood, G. H.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shield, George William


Groves, Thomas E.
Mansfield, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marley, J.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hall, F. (York, W. U., Normanton)
Marshall, Fred
Shinwell, E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mathers, George
Simmons, C. J.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Matters, L. W.
Sinkinson, George


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Maxton, James
Sitch, Charles H.


Hardie, George D.
Melville, Sir James
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Messer, Fred
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Haycock, A. W.
Middleton, G.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hayday, Arthur
Mills, J. E.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Milner, J.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Montague, Frederick
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morley, Ralph
Snell, Harry


Herriotts, J.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sorensen, R.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mort, D. L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Moses, J. J. H.
Stephen, Campbell


Hoffman, P. C.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hollins, A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Strauss, G. R.


Hopkin, Daniel
Muff, G.
Sullivan, J.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Muggeridge, H. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Horrabin, J. F.
Murnin, Hugh
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Toole, Joseph


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oldfield, J. R.
Tout, W. J.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Townend, A. E.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Turner, B.


Kelly, W. T.
Palin, John Henry
Vaughan, D. J.


Kennedy, Thomas
Paling, Wilfrid
Viant, S. P.


Kinley, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Walker, J.


Lang, Gordon
Perry, S. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lathan, G.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Potts, Jonn S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Price, M. P.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lawrence, Susan
Pybus, Percy John
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Quibell, D. J. K.
West, F. R.


Lawson, John James
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Leach, W.
Raynes, W. R.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Richards, R.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lees, J.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ritson, J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Lindley, Fred W.
Romeril, H. G.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Logan, David Gilbert
Rowssn, Guy
Wise, E. F.


Longbottom, A. W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Longden, F.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sanders, W. S.



Lunn, William
Sandham, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sawyer, G. F.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. William Whiteley.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Scrymgeour, E.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Albery, Irving James
Buchan, John
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Butler, R. A.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Carver, Major W. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Atholl, Duchess of
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dixey, A. C.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Beaumont, M. W.
Christie, J. A.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Eden, Captain Anthony


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Colfox, Major William Philip
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Colville, Major D. J.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ferguson, Sir John


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Boyce, H. L.
Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bracken, B.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brass, Captain Sir William
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Briscoe, Richard George
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)




Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Skelton, A. N.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mond, Hon. Henry
Smithers, Waldron


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Somerset, Thomas


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Hammersley, S. S.
Muirhead, A. J.
Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hanbury, C.
Newton, Sir O. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thomas, Major L. S. (King's Norton)


Hartington, Marquess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thomson, Sir F.


Haslam, Henry C.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Turton, Robert Hugh


Iveagh, Countess of
Purbrick, R.
Vaughan-Morqan, Sir Kenyon


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsbotham, H.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Remer, John R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Liewellin, Major J. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil
Wells, Sydney R.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Williams, Charles (Devon. Torquay)


Long, Major Eric
Salmon, Major I.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Lymington, Viscount
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Womersley, W. J.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart



MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir George Penny.


Question, "That the Clause he read a Second time "put, and agreed to.

Captain WATERHOUSE: On a point of Order. Was that Division on the Second Reading of the Clause, or on the Question "That the Clause be added to the Bill"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I put the question "That the Clause be now read a Second Time," and it was not challenged; and then I put the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Captain WATERHOUSE: I did not hear you put the Second Reading.

Clause 12 (Interpretation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE 7.—(Part I: Districts for Purposes of Part I of the Act. Part II: Provisions as to Amalgamations and adjustment of Districts.)

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move, in page 17, to leave out lines 8 to 12.
The Committee will be sorry to hear that my hon. and learned friend the Member for Holborn (Mr. S. Bevan), in whose name, among others, this Amend-mend stands on the Paper, is unwell. The object of the Amendment is to preserve intact as far as possible the area of the present so-called Five Counties Scheme, and I put it forward for the consideration of the Government, first, on the ground of gratitude that this Scheme has been rather the basis upon which they have framed their Bill;
secondly, because it will reduce very largely the numbers of areas and schemes which the Government will have to consider, and very much simplify their work: and thirdly, because, to my mind, a large area is much better than a small one, because it is much fairer to the individual pits if they should go before the executive committee. If you have a small area, and an individual colliery owner has to go before his next-door neighbour and put his case, the prejudice, bias, and natural business keenness will be much more adverse to the individual than if he had to go before the executive committee of a much larger area.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have very considerable sympathy with the Amendment, because the effect of it would be not to change the 21 wages ascertainment districts as districts for the Scheme under the Bill, but to accept what is commonly known as the Five Counties Scheme, but which in fact covers about nine counties, as an area of the Scheme. I have always indicated that anyone familiar with the problem realizes that 21 districts are far too many for the purposes of this Bill, and for myself I should like to see them reduced at the earliest possible moment, but reduction is provided for in the simple and ready amalgamation which follows this list of 21 districts, and I am afraid it would not be, if we were to delete these words and make the Five
Counties Scheme a scheme at once under the Schedule. For what it is worth, any influence that I can exercise will always be exercised in the direction of a smaller number of schemes, and there is nothing to prevent the organization now of the five counties from coming forward and itself promoting amalgamation in that area, and I have not the least doubt that amalgamation would be very sympathetically considered, but beyond that I cannot go. I can only repeat that it would be impossible to do it at this stage of the Bill; there are too many difficulties involved. I am not sure if the hon. Member intends to press this to a division, but as I understand that this will be the last Amendment to be called, I should like to use any final sentence in thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for
their very great consideration during these prolonged Committee proceedings.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.—(Bill 142).

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without the Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Four minutes after Twelve o'Clock.